ASOIAF Central Mystery Roundup

My ASOIAF studies have outpaced my ASOIAF writings so severely that the only way I can make time to get my ideas and the results of my research out into the world is to sit down in front of the microphone and just start talking. If you want a no-frills, straight to the point crash course on how ASOIAF’s central mysteries resolve, these videos are the only places I’ve shared those ideas. There are more episodes to come, but the first two or three contain the core of ASOIAF’s surprise endings.

Part 1

https://youtu.be/DWnWS3Q967I

Part 2

https://youtu.be/5PyjKyBuA00

Part 3

https://youtu.be/WlIuPobxn7M

Part 4

Will probably be about Elia Martell and/or Rhaella Targaryen.

Part 5

I will show where and how the R+L situation is symbolized throughout the story.

Somewhere along the way I will cover the Trident more thoroughly.

Somewhere along the way I will show where and how the Tower of Joy situation is symbolized throughout the story.

I will update this page with video links when I make new videos in the Central Mysteries series.


Created Sep 20, 2025

Preview of Robert’s Rebellion Symbols

I’m finally on A Storm of Swords in my second read-through of A Song of Ice and Fire. Now that I know the answers to most of the central mysteries, one of the things I’m doing during this reread is I’m finding many places where those answers have been symbolized all along. I’m far from finished, but I thought I would share some of what I have found so far because it’s exciting. Seeing how the secrets of all these mysteries were secretly being shown to us every step of the way is really awe inspiring. It is increasing my awareness of the massive scope and beauty of ASOIAF as a work of symbolism. Anyway without further ado let me give you a glimpse of what I mean.

To understand my notes, you’re going to have to know what some of those secrets are, so I will tell you explicitly now. I used to guard these secrets closely but I don’t have the time to do them the justice I wanted to and nobody believes me anyway so it’s time to set them free.I know much more than this anyway. If you don’t want to be spoiled close out of this page now.

Here are a few of ASOIAF’s most closely guarded secrets about its central mysteries, meaning the mysteries about the various things that happened during Robert’s Rebellion.

1. At the Battle of the Trident, Rhaegar drowned to death because his feet were caught in his stirrups and his horse couldn’t stand up after it took a stray hit and fell over in the water.

2. Lyanna Stark was a skinchanger who skinchanged Rhaegar at the Tourney of Harrenhal, fought in the tournament and won, and placed the crown of blue roses in her own lap.

3. Rhaegar was homosexual.

4. In the riverlands, when Rhaegar and company came to arrest Lyanna for skinchanging him, Lyanna skinchanged Rhaegar again and raped herself with his body, making herself pregnant with his baby.

Mirrors That Rhaegar is Gay

Vaegon Targaryen
Signals a bunch of Rhaegar similarities (targ prince, wine pour, surprise combat training, loves books) to show you that Rhaegar, like Vaegon, was uninterested in women (vaegon = asexual, rhaegar = gay) As with Rhaegar, the audience will say Vaegon was a pervert (used porn scrolls), mirroring when they said Rhaegar was a pervert / pedo who statuatory raped Lyanna.

Gaemon Palehair
Gay man pale hair. enough said. clue that rhaegar like gaemon was being manipulated by a group of whorish power hungry women who were trying to advance feminism (make rhaenys king).

Daemon “The Fiddler” Blackfyre
is gay, mirroring that Rhaegar was gay. See: Mirrors of the Trident Battle: Daemon The Fiddler.

Loras Tyrell
gives a red flower to Sansa Stark at the Hand’s Tourney in King’s Landing. Loras is Rhaegar, Sansa is Lyanna, the red rose is the blue rose crown. Loras being gay is a clue that Rhaegar was gay, and that therefore, in both situations, the giving of the flower/s did not indicate his romantic interest in her. Sansa realizes this later when Loras comes to get her from her room and escort her to meet Olenna.

Mirrors That Lyanna Skinchanged Rhaegar

ACOK Bran I
Bran warged into Summer fighting the old wolf and winning = Lyanna warged into Rhaegar fighting Barristan and winning in the Harrenhal final tilt. Summer being “prince of the green” matches Rhaegar being prince of the kingdom. Tyrion = Lewyn because in both cases that prince is his nephew. Rhaegar is Lewyn’s goodnephew, it matches with Joffrey being Tyrion’s nephew. Bran being in an isolated tower makes this partly a TOJ parallel, because Lyanna was the skinchanger in the Tower of Joy.

Rhaenyra Targaryen and Criston Cole
At the start of the Dance of the Dragons. Rhaenyra paralyzes Criston and rapes him. I think she used the same poison that was used to castrate Varys. Varys says it paralyzes you but you can feel everything. It was probably popular in the sex circles Rhaenyra was running in during her brothel tour with her uncle Daemon.

Joffrey Velaryon
Steals his mom Rhaenyra’s dragon Syrax. Joffrey is Lyanna, she “stole a dragon” when she skinchanged Rhaegar. In FAB. Joffrey is impaled by his own sword, symbolizing when Lyanna impaled herself with her own sword, Rhaegar’s dick. There is a Tower of Joy parallel here too with the 7 queensguard and 3 of them died. 7 and 3 invokes TOJ.

Mirrors of the Trident Battle

Davos
Drowning at the Battle of the Blackwater mirrors Rhaegar drowning at the Trident. Blackwater river = Trident river. Wildfire trap and feet tying trap have trap in common. Tyrion’s chain = Rhaegar’s shoelaces practically LOL!

Dunk vs Lucas “Longinch” Inchfield in The Sworn Sword.
Two men fighting on horseback in a river. Lucas is Robert because he has a two-handed weapon. Dunk is Rhaegar because his horse takes a stray hit from the enemy’s weapon, his horse falls over in the water, Dunk’s foot is stuck in the stirrup, and he almost drowns to death.

Daemon “The Fiddler” Blackfyre
gets defeated in a joust in the rain. They call him “The Brown Dragon” because he’s covered in mud, like the mud that the horses kick up in the Dunk v Lucas scene and the Davos Blackwater scene. Daemon is the symbolic Rhaegar because he’s a Targ prince, like Rhaegar he’s trying to be king, like Rhaegar he’s trying to usurp the current king, like Rhaegar he loses the fight and gets wet and muddy, and like Rhaegar he’s gay.

Mance Rayder
when Stannis attacks the wildlings. Mance is Rhaegar, he goes into battle on a horse and his horse gets hit and goes down and then there’s watery language (steel tide washed over him). It mirrors that Rhaegar’s horse took a hit, went down, and Rhaegar drowned to death. Mance’s tent is a mirror of the TOJ, it’s a shelter that the Rhaegar symbol left to go fight a battle, and where he left a pregnant woman who’s pregnant with his baby (Dalla / Lyanna).

ASOS Samwell I
After escaping the battle at the Fist, Sam is crossing a frozen stream when a Night’s Watch man runs up and pulls him off his horse and steals his horse and rides away. Then Sam’s foot gets stuck in a root and he falls down. It mirrors Rhaegar in the Trident having his foot stuck in his stirrups, falling in the river (Trident) and drowning to death.


Created Jul 4, 2025

Aerys The Mad King

Calling people crazy is dismissive.

When it comes to Aerys the Mad King I pick out one specific situation that involves Aerys being evil and I ask the reader to put himself in Aerys’s shoes. I say, ‘Tell me what you would do if you were Aerys in that situation.’ Invariably, one of the things the reader will say is ‘The question is moot because I wouldn’t have made the mistakes Aerys made that led to that situation (because I’m not crazy).’

The purpose of the question is to get the reader to reconsider Aerys’s moral alignment. The question is supposed to make that easier by constraining the reader’s attention to one situation at a time, protecting his moral judgement of the one situation from being influenced by the cloud of evilness in the situations that surround it. This response shows me that the reader still has not really reconsidered Aerys’s moral alignment. The reader defers the origin point of Aerys’s innate evilness to an earlier time. Thus, the intention of the challenge is essentially dodged.

If you go back far enough to a time when Aerys’s evilness can’t be deferred to an earlier time, such as in Aerys’s childhood, the reader’s willful blindness to a sympathetic consideration of Aerys will become more obvious. Elsewise, the reader will proclaim (as though I were suggesting it) that the sympathy in Aerys’s childhood doesn’t excuse the villainy in Aerys’s adulthood! The reader is right, of course. But yet again, the reader will deliberately resist sitting with the idea of sympathy in Aerys no matter Aerys’s age, because the feeling is that to acknowledge any sympathy in any version of Aerys is to excuse or justify the evils that he did later in life.

But for someone who is seriously concerning himself with the question of how to fight evil, the question of how evil develops is where the rubber meets the road. The transition from innocent child to evil king obviously happened somewhere in-between those two points, so the questions are where? And what could Aerys have done differently to right the situation? And even, what evils were non-Aerys people doing to worsen the situation?

Thus, readers are instilled with a belief about Aerys’s moral alignment that amounts to original sin. Their treatment of Aerys is as though his evilness is inherent and innate, it has no discernable point of origin, and there is nothing to be gained in taking the question of its origin seriously. Worse, that there is something to be lost in taking the question of its origin seriously.

What is to be lost? Perhaps a stable consensus. And inasmuch as a stable society needs a stable consensus about good and evil, perhaps a stable society is at stake, too. This seems the likely function of our stubbornness about questions of morality. If we begin considering Aerys in a sympathetic light, and worse, if we succeed and find sympathy in him, couldn’t that become an invitation, nay an inspiration, to more Aeryses and evils in the future?

It’s a fair concern, and one to be taken seriously. History has no shortage of copycat villains whose manifestos tell the story of a disaffected person who came to sympathize with a notorious villain too much, and then set out to be just like him.

Yet, at the same time, aren’t we at risk of becoming stupid about the true origins and nature of evil if we misrepresent the people who did evil? If we tell each other the lie that they were evil all along? Neither has history any shortage of people who succumbed to cruelty, fear, and temptation because they had become naive about how harsh or sneaky evil can be — the almost imperceptible way ordinary everyday sins give way to extraordinary ones down the road.

If I press the issue, sometimes I may get the reader to say ‘I guess Aerys’s behavior is understandable, but I still wouldn’t have done what he did.’ Then I say ‘But if you have never experienced the same thing, how can you know for sure? These are extreme circumstances we’re talking about, here. Betrayals from lifelong friends and partners, tragic stillbirths, being kidnapped…’ And if I’m feeling snarky, I might say ‘Are you the first person who lived to never act rashly from extreme emotion?’

People ask me, ‘Why do you think the story contains a hidden sympathetic angle for the Mad King? What purpose would that serve for the story?’

Stories are how we gain a deeper understanding of people. In a story, we get to see the main characters develop gradually before our eyes. We get to vicariously experience their emotions and share in their distresses and euphorias alike. This activity gives us a kind of understanding of other lives that goes well beyond what we can get from a collection of dry facts about the same life.

Our mistake with Aerys is a natural one, but in ASOIAF it is a mistake nonetheless. We assumed Aerys’s development is not supposed to matter because we didn’t see it and he is not a main character. So, ASOIAF asks its readers an open question: How much improvement is there to be gained in our real lives if we all stopped assuming the same thing about one another?


Created Dec 31, 2024

Tower of Joy, A Study in Symbolic Interpretation – Chapter 14

Chapter 14 – The She-wolf

lyannastark 3 banner

Previous: Chapter 13 – The Black Bat

Beginning: Chapter 0-4 – Introduction

Three Kingsguard

One of the long lasting questions about the Tower of Joy is ‘Why were there three Kingsguard, as opposed to one, two or four?’ It seems overkill for Rhaegar to have so many of his deadliest fighters devoted to guarding a 14 or 15-year-old girl and a tower in the middle of nowhere, especially while those Kingsguard could have been the difference between victory or defeat at the Battle of the Trident, as Ned and Oswell point out in Ned’s Tower of Joy dream.

“I looked for you on the Trident,” Ned said to them.

“We were not there,” Ser Gerold answered.

“Woe to the Usurper if we had been,” said Ser Oswell. (AGOT 39 Eddard X p354)

Ned’s line suggests that Ned was expecting more Kingsguard at the Battle of the Trident, and Oswell’s line suggests that Oswell would have preferred fewer Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy and more at the Battle of the Trident. So these lines steer me away from the questions “Why not four?” and “Why not more?” and toward the questions “Why not two? Or one? Or none?” What’s so important at the Tower of Joy that Rhaegar thinks two Kingsguard are not enough to guard it?

If the baby Lyanna is birthing at the Tower of Joy is Jon Snow and Rhaegar is Jon’s father, then maybe Rhaegar wanted to protect Lyanna and his son Jon. But since Rhaegar’s first son and heir (Aegon) was still alive in King’s Landing at the time, it may not make sense for Rhaegar to have placed the three Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy rather than at King’s Landing. So maybe Jon isn’t the reason. On the other hand, the Tower of Joy is more vulnerable than the Red Keep, so it might make sense after all.

The Number Three

In November 2012, a mobile phone application was released by the name of George R. R. Martin’s A World of Ice and Fire — A Game of Thrones Guide (henceforth AWOIAF). AWOIAF provided new tidbits of information that can’t be found in any of the previously published books. The information in it is considered semi-canon, because it was written by Martin’s co-authors from The World of Ice and Fire, Elio Garcia and Linda Antonsson, with input from Martin himself.

In the Rhaegar Targaryen section of AWOIAF, we learn that, after the Targaryen defeat in the Battle of the Bells, King Aerys sent his Kingsguard commander Ser Gerold Hightower from King’s Landing to find and retrieve Rhaegar. Though Rhaegar returned to King’s Landing, Gerold did not. Gerold was next seen at the Tower of Joy in Dorne, with Arthur Dayne and Oswell Whent, guarding Lyanna Stark.

To judge by this information, it seems that when Gerold found Rhaegar at the Tower of Joy, Rhaegar told Gerold to stay and help guard it, and then departed for King’s Landing himself.

It’s a little strange that the commander of the Kingsguard obeys a command that keeps him far away from the king he’s sworn to protect, and during dire times such as these. It seems even stranger considering that the command comes from Rhaegar, who the king believes is trying to usurp the throne from him. Though, it doesn’t seem much stranger than Oswell Whent and Arthur Dayne doing the very same thing.

Whatever is really going on here regarding these characters’ true loyalties and motivations, I notice that this new crumb of information has the effect of highlighting a familiar-looking intrigue about the Tower of Joy: When Gerold arrived, Rhaegar left. In other words, when three guards became two, Rhaegar made it three again. Yet again, the Tower of Joy clues lead us to a question about the number of guards.

What’s so important about the number three guards? What can three guards do that two can’t?

Now that we know Lyanna was a skinchanger, we can tie a bow on this mystery, too. Three is the minimum number of guards needed to guard a skinchanger.

Think about it. Whenever a group of two or more travel companions go to sleep in dangerous territory, what do they do? One person stays awake to keep watch while the rest of the group sleeps. Halfway through the night, the watcher wakes a second person and they switch places so the watcher can get some sleep too. The purpose of this is to make sure there is always somebody keeping watch and the guards get enough sleep to function the next day.

If the group is guarding a prisoner day and night, two guards is enough guards to ensure there is always one person watching the prisoner, and each guard has a chance to sleep if they take turns. But if the prisoner is a skinchanger, two guards isn’t enough anymore. While Guard-A sleeps, the skinchanger can take the body of Guard-B, use it to kill Guard-A, then open any prison doors and manacles, and then manacle or kill himself before returning to her own body. With three guards, that won’t be possible because two can stay awake and watch each other for suspicious behavior.

So, when the third guard arrived (Gerold Hightower) that freed up Rhaegar to leave the Tower of Joy and bring battle to the Trident.

Now recall the “strange chill” that Ned felt on the way to visit the dying Robert Baratheon. It becomes even more understandable. The three Kingsguard Ned passed reminded him that Lyanna skinchanged Oswell Whent, but it did more than that. It also reminded Ned why the number of Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy had to be three. Two was not enough guards to guard a body snatching prisoner. Like so, the implicit question in Ned’s Tower of Joy line “I looked for you on the Trident” receives an answer. ‘Where were you on the Trident?’ asked Ned. ‘I was stuck here,’ each of the three kingsguard men could have answered, ‘because two isn’t enough guards to guard your sister.’

The Queen of Love and Beauty

blue roses 1 banner

If there is one single moment in ASOIAF that comes to readers’ minds more than any other when the phrase “Central mysteries” or “mysteries” is uttered, then I think it must be the image of Rhaegar placing the queen of love and beauty’s crown of pale blue roses in Lyanna’s lap at the Tourney of Harrenhal.

Yet when the jousting began, the day belonged to Rhaegar Targaryen. The crown prince wore the armor he would die in: gleaming black plate with the three-headed dragon of his House wrought in rubies on the breast. A plume of scarlet silk streamed behind him when he rode, and it seemed no lance could touch him. Brandon fell to him, and Bronze Yohn Royce, and even the splendid Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning.

Robert had been jesting with Jon and old Lord Hunter as the prince circled the field after unhorsing Ser Barristan in the final tilt to claim the champion’s crown. Ned remembered the moment when all the smiles died, when Prince Rhaegar Targaryen urged his horse past his own wife, the Dornish princess Elia Martell, to lay the queen of beauty’s laurel in Lyanna’s lap. He could see it still: a crown of winter roses, blue as frost.

Ned Stark reached out his hand to grasp the flowery crown, but beneath the pale blue petals the thorns lay hidden. He felt them clawing at his skin, sharp and cruel, saw the slow trickle of blood run down his fingers, and woke, trembling, in the dark. (AGOT 58 Eddard XV p526)

‘Why did he do it?’ we all want to know. Did Rhaegar fall in love with Lyanna because of her selfless deeds as the Knight of the Laughing Tree? Did Rhaegar know how insulting this would be to his wife Elia Martell? That it would be received as such a scandal? That it would start a civil war? Was Rhaegar just so obsessed with prophecy and getting his “third head of the dragon” prophecy baby that he calculated those risks and damages were worth it to, ostensibly, save the world from the Others and the Long Night?

As with the mystery of the three guards, the mystery of the queen of love and beauty can now be solved by applying what we learned in our Tower of Joy investigation. The reason Rhaegar Targaryen rode past his wife Elia Martell and laid the crown of blue roses in Lyanna’s lap was because, for that moment, Rhaegar was not Rhaegar. He was Lyanna Stark.

Lyanna reached out with her psychic skinchanging power and took control of Rhaegar’s mind and body. She jousted in the tournament, won the crown of blue roses and the opportunity to bestow it upon the loveliest woman present. Then Lyanna, as Rhaegar, rode past Rhaeger’s wife Elia Martell and laid the crown of blue roses in her own lap. Now having awarded herself with a public display of affection from the crown prince, Lyanna returned to her own body to receive her reward in full, leaving the prince atop his horse feeling “love struck” indeed.

I use the phrase “love struck” because I’m referring to GRRM’s answer to a fan question in 2016 at an International Book Fair in Guadalajara, Mexico.

u/dyhtstriyk

88 pts 2016

So my question was: Why do you think the political institutions in the Seven Kingdoms are so weak? His [GRRM’s] answer: the Kingdom was unified with dragons, so the Targaryen’s flaw was to create an absolute monarchy highly dependent on them, with the small council not designed to be a real check and balance. So, without dragons it took a sneeze, a wildly incompetent and megalomaniac king, a love struck prince, a brutal civil war, a dissolute king that didn’t really know what to do with the throne and then chaos. Interesting answer. [reddit]

Lyanna skinchanging Rhaegar is a resolution to the Queen of Love and Beauty mystery that will undoubtedly cause much of the ASOIAF subculture to shift uncomfortably in their seats, because it comes during the 28th year of a tradition of heaping most of the blame onto Rhaegar, and of enshrining Lyanna as simultaneously empowered and helpless, woman and child, hero and victim.

u/Salem1960s

625 pts 2023

(…) Rhaegar Targeyen was a cunt. Who looks up from a book and says: ”It seems I must be a warrior.”? That’s a fucking pompous statement, isn’t it? Forget for a moment that Lyanna was a dumb teenager in love, who may not have not known any better, essentially groomed by an adult male. Forget that for a moment. Forget about the prophecies for a moment. Let’s imagine for a moment that prophecies, or at least, that prophecy were absolute and utter bullshit. Let’s look at this in practical terms: This guy was, in all honesty, a massive fucking idiot: Reckless, impulsive, heedless, irrational, and frankly, selfish and narcissistic. He threw everything aside for a fucking prophecy that he was narcissistic enough to think was about him. And one could argue that that “prophecy” was an excuse to bang a young girl. Didn’t seem to care that his actions got his new side piece’s dad and brother killed. Oops! (…) [reddit]

A teenage girl’s desire for the most desirable man in the kingdom, in and of itself, should not be surprising. Rhaegar has the good looks, athleticism, authority, money, and prestige that has always attracted women. Yet it still surprises us, and one major reason is because it’s a reversal of our modern expectations. Wherever a man and woman are found cohabiting a scandal, our collective tendency is to assume the man is the predator and the woman is the victim. But as every sufficiently attractive, successful, and prestigious man can tell you, the truth is often quite the reverse — that the woman is the predator and the man is the object of her predation.

Sadly, most of us will never experience what it’s like to be Rhaegar-Targaryen levels of desirable to women, leaving us with little cause to consider that a woman’s desire for a man, even a 14- or 15-year-old “child-woman of surpassing loveliness” as Ned Stark puts it, is the smoking gun in a long beloved and belabored mystery. With this acknowledgement, I can see that this old mystery owes much of its fortitude to its audience’s protectiveness of women and jealousy of men alike.

In a Tower of Joy parallel at the Whispers, Brienne’s hatred of men resulted in the death of an innocent man named Nimble Dick Crabb, symbolizing that if the ASOIAF audience wants to solve the Tower of Joy mystery, we need to notice how our own hatreds of men are preventing us from discovering what happened at the Tower of Joy. In the fog of the Rhaegar and Lyanna mystery, jealous men and man-hating women have found a common cause. As one commenter all too aptly said it:

u/Usual_Jackfruit

7 pts 2023

All this subreddit do is trash on Rhaegar like he is a real person [reddit]

A New Whisper

Once more, we’ve come upon a compelling partial answer to the question of what the whispered promises were that Lyanna asked of Ned in her dying moments. ‘Promise me, Ned, that you won’t let anyone know that I skinchanged Rhaegar and crowned myself the queen of love and beauty.’

A Fledgling Philosophy

To echo something I said in Chapter 7, the first time you solve a big mystery you have your first complete model of how ASOIAF’s symbolic revelations work from bottom to top, and the things you can learn from that model will generalize to the rest of the story’s mysteries, setting in motion a gradually snowballing effect of mystery solving by improving your understanding of the story’s philosophy and your educated guesses.

We’ve got our snowball rolling at a good pace now and we have knocked down a handful of the big mysteries at the center of ASOIAF, so now is a good time to stop and ask, what do you think is the story’s philosophy? To put it another way, what attitudes in the audience are the story’s revelations consistently subverting?

  1. Nimble Dick Crabb was being a good guide when we thought he was being a bad guide.
  2. Brienne was being a bad knight when we thought she was being a good knight.
  3. Rhaegar was a victim when we thought he was being a predator.
  4. Lyanna was being a predator when we thought she was a victim.

The pattern will become easier to see if I rewrite them this way.

  1. A man was being good when we thought he was being bad.
  2. A woman was being bad when we thought she was being good.
  3. A man was being good when we thought he was being bad.
  4. A woman was being bad when we thought she was being good.

The philosophy that’s guiding all of these revelations is about men characters being better than the audience thought and women characters being worse than the audience thought. The story is implicitly suggesting that its audience, on the whole, is overcritical of men characters and undercritical of women characters. To put it another way for those who don’t like the notion that a story makes suggestions, George R. R. Martin is suggesting that his audience, on the whole, is overcritical of men characters and undercritical of women characters.

It is a simplistic philosophy, to be sure, but just like when defining a symbol, when defining a philosophy it’s good to start with a simple and straight-to-the-point description and then refine it as you go. The implicit prescription, then, is that we should become less critical of men characters and more critical of women characters, if we want to solve more ASOIAF mysteries. Because of its repetition, we can expect this philosophy to generalize to the rest of the story.* In the next chapter we’ll apply this understanding to the mysteries of Rhaegar Targaryen. “It seems I must be a warrior” the mysterious boy prince enigmatically said.

[[ * While 2-4 repititions are enough to warrant this conclusion, if tentatively, in practice I didn’t notice the philosophy until I saw it repeated across many mysteries. So admittedly I am jumping the gun with this conclusion for the sake of demonstrating an advanced stage of symbolic interpretation while constraining myself to information we’ve covered in this Whispers≈TOJ symbol investigation. A sad side effect of doing this is that I’m spending revelations that would have been more satisfying by booting up a new symbol and working up to them incrementally like we did in this essay series. For instance, a Prologue≈TOJ symbol could have taught us some of the same things we learned from Whispers≈TOJ, like that Gerold’s sword broke (like Waymar Royce) and one of Ned’s seven men did not fight (like the six Others). This would have been our predicament no matter which TOJ parallel I chose to investigate, so it was unavoidable, but hopefully the Whispers was a good choice and the surprises will still be satisfying. ]]

Next: Chapter 15 – The Dragon Prince

Beginning: Chapter 0-4 – Introduction


Created Dec 6, 2024
Updated Dec 12, 2024
Updated May 17, 2025 small fix
Updated June 2, 2025 small change

Aegon IV the Unworthy – Response to Goodqueenaly

This is a Tumblr post by goodqueenaly from History of Westeros that I’m responding to.

goodqueenaly: https://www.tumblr.com/goodqueenaly/768392425023700992/obviously-aegon-iv-was-generally-a-shitbag?source=share

Obviously Aegon IV was generally a shitbag (including to Naerys) and generally a completely selfish person, so I wouldn’t necessarily need to ascribe any greater motivation to Aegon’s extramarital sexual relationship with Megette than the king’s overall lust, greed, and cruelty. (Indeed, I’ve compared Aegon’s acquisition of Megette to Tyrion’s acquisition of Shae.) Yet I wonder whether part of Aegon’s idea in making Megette his de facto official mistress was to humiliate Naerys in a very particular, very cruel way.

After all, Aegon didn’t just make Megette his sexual partner – according to Yandel, “[Megette] and Aegon were even ‘wed’ in a secret ceremony conducted by a mummer playing a septon”. Of course no one would have believed that Aegon and Megette’s play-marriage was legally binding, given that “bride” and “bridegroom” were already married to other people and that the officiant seems to have been deliberately chosen for jovial mockery. Yet the very farcical nature of the “marriage” may have been precisely what Aegon wanted, specifically to hurt and demean his sister-wife and queen.

Aegon had every reason to know that Naerys was deeply unhappy in their own marriage, in no small part I think because of her religious scruples. I very much believe that Naerys had wanted to become a septa, rather than marry her brother, because she (along with other Targaryens of her generation) believed the Doctrine of Exceptionalism was a heresy which had incurred the wrath of the Seven. Moreover, when Naerys had attempted to voice her pious resistance to their incestuous union, Aegon had responded not just with denial, but with scornful, sardonic cruelty.

So perhaps Aegon, with his penchant for vicious, decided to frame his relationship with Megette, his first major mistress following his marriage, in the way that would most hurt Naerys. If Naerys had resisted an incestuous union as heretical in the eyes of the Seven, Aegon would now force her to engage in an even more heretical relationship – an unwillingly bigamous “marriage” in which not only was she married to her brother, but another woman was as well. To twist the knife more for Naerys, perhaps, Aegon had chosen as his play-second wife a woman who was herself already married – that is, a sort of double bigamy on top of the incestuous union Naerys had been forced to endure. This was Aegon openly sneering at the concept of marriage as defined by the Faith of the Seven, and as such attacking Naerys in that piety she held so dear. He so little cared about the Seven’s institution of marriage, so he might have wanted to show Naerys, that not only was he going to insist that she stay married to him despite the physical danger to herself and (so she may have believed) the spiritual danger to her soul, but he was going to turn marriage itself into a joke – so obviously flouting the principles of Faith marriage, with his married play-wife and a mummer to oversee the play-polygamy.

Morality Binds and Blinds

Aegon had hated the Dornish and warred against them, and those lords who desired the return of those days—despite all the associated misrule—would never be happy with this peaceable king. (TWOIAF)

As you can see above, the historian’s writings of Aegon IV are seasoned with unsubtle jabs at Aegon IV. They are reminders that you’re supposed to think he’s a villain.

As I read through Goodqueenaly’s writings about Aegon IV, I can see that they are seasoned the same way.

Obviously Aegon IV was generally a shitbag

Like Shae, Megette was a lowborn woman whose life prior to meeting her aristocratic male partner (and I use that term extremely loosely) was neither truly free nor independent:

The historian’s propaganda has done its work on Goodqueenaly, causing her to seize upon cheap opportunities to demonize Aegon IV in the eyes of her readers just like the historian is doing to his readers. All the better to moralize the issues.

When you make an issue about good versus evil (moralize), rather than about the facts, you blind people to reason. And when you blind people to reason, you increase the difficulty and danger for a truthseeker to promote conclusions that are more true. Now you have a Westerosi society (and a fandom) that is bonded together by the shared belief that Aegon IV was evil, before the reader has had a chance to do any reasoned deliberation of the facts to determine for himself what he believes about Aegon IV’s moral alignment.

To a society of people that is strongly bonded by the idea of Aegon IV’s villainy, who would dare say that Aegon IV did something good, even if it’s true? The social cost of saying it is not worth the reward, except to the rare person who is sufficiently devoted to the truth. Those are the Aristotles and Galileos of our own world, people who paid the ultimate price because they would not be deterred from a truth that their societies couldn’t bear to know.

If Aegon IV was a villain in reality (the story’s reality), wouldn’t the facts stand in evidence of that all on their own? I mean, without the incessant commentaries about his moral alignment? Surely, readers can be trusted to conclude that a king who actively terrorized, humiliated, and harmed his wife was evil, so long as the facts majorly show that terror, humiliation, and suffering were what King Aegon really intended or caused, and/or what Queen Naerys really experienced.

Though I don’t expect you to believe it before I present and explain all the evidence (Indeed the heart of my lesson [and ASOIAF’s lesson, I gather] is that you should not believe the guilt of anyone where severe accusations are made, before you’ve seen and considered all the evidence), King Aegon IV did not terrorize, humiliate, or harm his wife Queen Naerys. But in fact, Naerys did all of those things to Aegon. The morality of these characters is reversed. And the reason these histories reverse the morality of these characters is because Daeron I The Good was the bastard son of Queen Naerys and Aemon the Dragonknight, and therefore an illegitimate king.

But why would present day historians care about Daeron the Good’s legitimacy or illegitimacy? Because present day historians are writing under present day kings, and the legitimacy of present day kings derives from the legitimacy of past kings they’re descended from. In other words, if it were to become widely known and accepted that Daeron the Good was a bastard, it would become known that Aerys II is illegitimate, too. Because Aerys II descends from him. Under the reign of King Aerys II for example, the spread of that knowledge would be disastrous for the ruling family because the line of succession would jump all the way back up the tree to Aegon IV’s natural sons, who are legitimate heirs because they were legitimized by a legitimate king — Aegon IV himself on his deathbed — and Targaryen civil war would ensue.

Why would GRRM write the story that way? Because this is part of ASOIAF’s baked-in commentary that its audience does not pay enough attention to or give enough weight to the succession politics of Westeros. For the noble and royal people in the story, matters of succession are an ever present reality that shapes their daily lives. Even children such as the Walders Frey are constantly tracking lines of succession for this reason. But for the reader, matters of succession can be comfortably ignored, because most of the plot and drama does not require you to pay attention to politics in order to enjoy it on a surface level, and because your own well-being does not hinge upon noticing, for instance, that your uncle wants to kill your brother, and will want to kill you too when you take your brother’s place on the throne (Thinking of Baelor I). As Goodqueenaly’s analysis often shows, even readers highly knowledgeable of and attentive to ASOIAF’s political machinery are mostly blind to its political subtext.

In keeping with my thesis, her blindness is a morally motivated kind of blindness, because accompanying many of her oversights is a speculative rationale that is commensurate with (and often flattering to) her personal sense of what’s right or wrong, good or evil. Here’s one example.

As the official story of history goes, Aegon IV’s extramarital activities were an insult and humiliation to Queen Naerys, because a husband is supposed to be monogamous with his wife. Sure enough, Aegon’s non-monogamy is the premiere villainy that characterizes Aegon in these histories. There are a whole two pages dedicated to Aegon’s mistresses. Then Goodqueenaly proposed the possibility that part of the reason Aegon IV had his marriage to Megette officiated by a mummer playing a septon, rather than a real septon, was that it gave extra insult to Naerys by giving insult to the Faith’s institution of marriage, because Naerys loved the Faith of the Seven.

But if Aegon marrying Megette was an insult to Naerys, by that same logic shouldn’t Aegon fake marrying Megette be less of an insult to Naerys rather than more? The marriage was fake, after all, because the septon was a mummer and not a real septon. Using the original logic that disloyalty to your first marriage is wrong and mean, surely the use of a real septon officiator in the second marriage should be more wrong and mean than using a fake septon officiator.

What I’m highlighting is that Goodqueenaly’s speculations about the situation are driven not by a logical consistency, but by a moral consistency. Aegon being bad and Naerys being good is the moral framework that is guiding her speculations, and the logical framework is rearranged to support it. What goes largely unnoticed by her is that with the addition of her speculation the situation as a whole has become illogical.

And what usually goes entirely unnoticed by her is that the nature of the illogic suggests an alternative and viable possibility for what the true nature of these events really was. It just requires us to do the opposite of what Goodqueenaly did—preserve the logic and invert the moral alignments instead. That is, suppose that Aegon was good and Naerys was bad.

If Aegon was the good guy in this situation and Naerys was bad, what would that situation look like and what speculations would help it make sense? Now you’re in the right frame of mind to work and solve the historiographic puzzles of The World of Ice and Fire and Fire & Blood.


Created Dec 5, 2024

Tower of Joy, A Study in Symbolic Interpretation – Chapter 9

Chapter 9 – The Fight and Fighters II

brienne ned 2

Previous: Chapter 8 – Nimble Dick Crabb
Beginning: Chapter 0-4 – Introduction

In Chapter 6 – The Fight and Fighters, we came upon some awkwardness about which character in the Whispers is symbolizing Arthur Dayne according to Ned Stark’s line “and [Arthur Dayne] would have killed me but for Howland Reed.” That awkwardness marks precisely where we should dive in deep. Let’s do that now.

We’ve established that Podrick is symbolizing Howland Reed when he’s throwing the stones. And we’ve established that Arthur Dayne is being symbolized in the Whispers scene, too, though we’re shaky on who it is. One thing we can do to help us determine who it is is to preserve the relationship between the Arthur Dayne symbol and the Howland symbol. In order to preserve the relationship between the Arthur and Howland symbols, we should make sure the person at the Whispers who we have set as the Arthur symbol is the same person who would have killed Brienne but for Podrick’s stonethrow.

When we tested our symbols, the test returned a result that indicates that the Whispers character who’s symbolizing Arthur Dayne is not nobody and it’s not Pyg, either, and that it could be either Shagwell or Timeon. The fight establishes that the greatest danger to Brienne is that no matter who she chooses to attack first, there will be somebody to attack her from behind. Though we can’t say for sure that that danger necessarily would have resulted in her death if Podrick had not thrown the stone that dazed Shagwell, from a storytelling standpoint the author would have been obligated to have the attacker from behind successfully harm Brienne, so as not to contradict the danger that he himself established in the scene. That is to say, if there was no flying stone to save the day and Brienne came out of this murderer sandwich fine and dandy anyway, that would have been poor storytelling.

This echoes the point earlier that fiction can be read in the voices of both the characters and author. Here, we’re using our understanding that the author wants to write a good quality story to narrow down the possibilities of what would have happened without Podrick’s stonethrow.

Since the readers are not allowed to change, add, or remove words from the story, we’re only allowed to reinterpret it, then in order for us to preserve the quality of this story we have to treat the danger of the attacker from behind as though it’s significant. The more significant the danger is, the higher quality of a story this situation will have turned out to be. Since we can’t know how high the quality of this part of the story will turn out to be, if we want to continue with our investigation we have to make an educated guess and then proceed as though that guess is correct.

[[ This is a part of my analysis method that I call George R. R. Martin Is A Good Writer. This sort of analytical move is far from fail-proof, but when used conservatively it can be a powerful tool for temporarily bridging gaps in knowledge with the hope that the knowledge that belongs in the gap will become more obvious after I get my footing on the opposite shore. Here, I’m relying upon a handful of things that are already true to remain true in and for this moment in the story. It’s true that when a writer establishes a danger in a fight scene he better not contradict that danger without good reason lest he sabotage the quality of the scene, so it’s a safe bet that this writer is not making so amateur a mistake. Likewise, it’s true that GRRM is a good writer, so for any random part of the story it’s a safe bet that he’s not making any amateur mistakes. And it’s true that outside of exceptional circumstances and most else being equal, one armed person will usually lose in a fight against two armed people. ]]

Then the question is, how high should we assume the quality of the story (or any part of it) is? To answer that question, I make an estimate based on the quality of the story as a whole. Since ASOIAF is an exceptionally high quality story in my opinion and the opinions of many millions others, and since ASOIAF has set a high standard of realism for itself (not to be confused with historical accuracy), especially in practical matters like fights, the best strategy for interpretation here is to assume the highest quality, and therefore the highest danger. And the highest danger that is possible to Brienne in this situation is death.

With the danger of the six o’ clock attacker set to lethal, whether you think Arthur Dayne is being symbolized by Shagwell or Timeon depends upon your answer to this question: Do you think Podrick’s stonethrow changed who Brienne would have chosen to attack first?

Brienne attacked Timeon first, so if you answered Yes, you think Brienne would have attacked Shagwell first and Timeon would have been the one behind her who killed her, making Timeon the symbolic Arthur Dayne. If you answered No, you think Brienne would have attacked Timeon first and Shagwell would have been the one behind her who killed her, making Shagwell the symbolic Arthur Dayne.

Whispers Fight

Now, here is the final step. This is the first and most essential thing ASOIAF asks us to do. Put yourself in the shoes of Brienne. In your imagination, fight the fight as it happened in the story from her perspective. No matter which way you turn, an enemy is at your back and will kill you from behind the moment you commit to attacking one or the other. Then the stone flies in and dazes Shagwell. Now is your chance! Safe from behind, you attack Timeon and kill him. With Timeon dead, Shagwell regains control of himself. Safe from behind, you attack Shagwell and kill him. Now it’s fifteen years later and I ask you this question:

‘Who would have killed you but for Podrick Payne?’

Who YOU consider the person who would have killed you depends on who YOU were going to attack first before Podrick threw the stone. Exactly! Whoever you were going to attack first, the person who would have killed you is the other enemy. If you were going to attack Timeon first, then your answer is Shagwell. If you were going to attack Shagwell first, then your answer is Timeon.

Pay close attention now, because here’s the magic trick. Since Timeon is already symbolic of Arthur Dayne through their dornish commonalities, and Shagwell is already symbolic of Oswell through their commonalities, Ned naming Arthur Dayne as the man who would have killed him but for Howland Reed tells us that Brienne was going to attack Shagwell first!

Ah! Did you remember that symbols travel in both directions? Whispers≈TOJ is the same symbol as TOJ≈Whispers. That means that as long as there is enough exclusive commonality to hold firm each character in the Whispers scene as a symbol of each character in the TOJ scene, information can be borrowed from the TOJ scene to fill knowledge gaps in the Whispers scene just as reasonably as information can be borrowed from the Whispers scene to fill knowledge gaps in the TOJ scene.

This echoes my earlier point that GRRM’s mysteries rely upon readers to succeed at making the outward trip through the symbol, and to fail to make the return trip through the symbol back to the scene of origin. It also echoes my earlier point that ASOIAF only yields its secrets to those who can reconcile two opposing and seemingly irreconcilable sides. Here, the opposing sides that were reconciled were the ‘Brienne would have attacked Shagwell first’ side versus the ‘Brienne would have attacked Timeon first’ side.

We come to rest upon one of the most significant things the Whispers scene is showing us about the Tower of Joy scene. Like Brienne at the Whispers, Ned’s first choice of target rather than Howland’s is what determines who Ned considers the person who would have killed him but for Howland Reed. Thus, Ned’s enigmatic line about Arthur Dayne almost killing him but for Howland Reed has now been reintegrated with Ned’s lived perspective in his fight at the Tower of Joy. He just needed somebody to put themselves in his shoes to understand him. That’s us, baby!

The essence of the surprise here is about what the surprise is not. The surprise is not so much that Ned naming Arthur Dayne tells us that Brienne would name Timeon. The much bigger shock is that Brienne ending up in a two-versus-one scenario at the Whispers tells us that Ned ended up in a two-versus-one scenario at the Tower of Joy.

Sure enough, the two-versus-one scenario at the Whispers is a striking DIFFERENCE from what we know about the scenario in the Tower of Joy fight (that is, virtually nothing) and as I said at the end of Chapter 4, not every difference between the two things in the symbol needs to indicate something we don’t know about one or the other, but most if not everything we don’t know about one situation or the other that there is to be learned from the symbolic relationship will be found in their DIFFERENCES rather than their similarities. But because we have spent this analysis oriented to seeing the symbol in one certain direction (Whispers=TOJ), the reversal of direction may feel jarring.

Without a doubt, this is the moment in the essay when a skeptic of symbolic interpretation will probably be thinking ‘Hey! You can’t do that!’ Nonetheless, it is a legal move in symbolic interpretation, and it stems from the same insight about the nature of symbolism that caused me to write out my symbols using the approximately equals sign. Symbolism inherently introduces the equals function, and the equals function is necessarily a two way street. Try saying A can represent or be substituted with B without saying B can represent or be substituted with A. It can’t be done. To say one is to say the other.

In math we’re taught that everything before the equals sign can be swapped with everything after the equals sign without changing or falsifying the equation one bit. It may sound like a meaningless thing to do since it doesn’t change anything about the equation, but one thing it does change is your perception of it. Sometimes an equation is easier to understand or work with when you swap what’s on either side of the equals sign — when you get a new perspective on it, you might say. The same things are true with symbols. Here, by swapping what’s on either side of the Whispers≈TOJ symbol so that we’re reading the situation as TOJ≈Whispers, we can more easily see that it’s possible that Brienne’s two-versus-one conundrum might be borrowed directly from the Tower of Joy fight as it happened to Ned in GRRM’s mind but that he hasn’t revealed to us yet.

More than that, with this shift in perspective on the symbol we can more easily sense how that would go a long way toward explaining the storytelling economics of the Whispers scene. Why did GRRM spend so many pages, words and effort telling us Brienne travels through the woods and kills three dirt bags at a ruined castle when I just did it in one sentence? Did we really need to have that description elaborated into a detailed chapter and fight scene? Well, if this one fight scene is secretly showing us two fight scenes through the coded language of symbolism, that’s a stronger answer to the question of why GRRM spent so many pages, words and effort telling it to us. He’s writing some cool symbolism for us to chew on, as we have been doing in this essay.

Conclusion

Like Brienne, during the fight Ned ended up in a situation where he had to choose between attacking Oswell Whent first or attacking Arthur Dayne first, and he chose Oswell. Then Howland Reed did his sneak attack, and Ned changed his choice to Arthur and killed Arthur. Therefore, whatever Howland did removed Oswell as a threat to Ned, at least momentarily.

TOJ Fight

Is that cool or what? It doesn’t answer our original question about what Howland did, but it’s a bold statement about the TOJ fight that tells us a dramatic moment in the TOJ fight, places specific characters in specific positions, and will guide us toward the right answer to those top level questions:

  • “What did Howland Reed do at the Tower of Joy?”
  • “How exactly did the fight play out?”

Symbol Test – Ned≈Brienne, Arthur≈Timeon, Oswell≈Shagwell

Now let’s do a quick and simple test to see how well this interpretation predicts a part of the story that we don’t remember. Recall, the ability to accurately predict things in the story that you don’t remember is, from your own perspective at least, no different from predicting things in the story that haven’t been written or published yet. The commonality between things you don’t remember and things that haven’t been published yet is of course things you don’t know.

Supposing that the story may contain a convincing indication about who, between Timeon and Shagwell, Brienne meant to attack first before Podrick threw the stone that dazed Shagwell, can you come up with an idea about what that indication might be? Try it now.

For me, the first idea that comes to mind is the question of who or what Brienne was looking at just before Podrick’s stone hit Shagwell. It stands to reason that whoever or whatever Brienne was looking at when she was deciding who to attack first is who or what she considered the biggest threat. Similarly, it stands to reason that in a two-against-one fight, the first person the One would attack is the person she considers the bigger threat of the Two, in order to minimize how effective the enemy’s number advantage will be.

So, do you remember the last thing Brienne was looking at in the moment just before Podrick’s stone hit Shagwell in the head? If not, that’s perfect, because this is a great opportunity to complete your very own symbol test by rereading this moment in AFFC Brienne IV, p.295.

In the next chapter of this essay, we’ll use what we’ve learned here about this dramatic standoff with Ned Stark against Arthur Dayne and Oswell Whent, and combine it with some more symbol work, to deduce more practical details in the Tower of Joy fight that have never been seen by readers before.

Next: Chapter 10 — The Magic Swords
Beginning: Chapter 0-4 – Introduction


Created Aug 24, 2024
Updated Aug 30, 2024 – End expanded

Tower of Joy, A Study in Symbolic Interpretation – Chapter 8

Chapter 8 – Nimble Dick Crabb

Previous: Chapter 7 – He Would Have Killed Me But For Howland Reed

Beginning: Chapter 0-4 – Introduction

For this essay chapter, I recommend re-reading the ASOIAF chapter that we’re looking at, AFFC 20 Brienne IV (p280), in order to reacquaint yourself with it so you can get the most out of the essay. AFFC 20 Brienne IV is very enjoyable as a standalone story.

At the end of chapter 5 we learned that Brienne’s engagement with the Ser Galladon story is symbolizing our engagement with the Brienne story. Brienne improved her situation in the Whispers fight by noticing the commonalities between herself and a character in a story (Galladon), by taking feedback from Nimble Dick about what that story means (there’s something wrong with honor and don’t hold back your power when it counts), and changing her mind about not using her own magic sword before entering a dangerous situation at the Whispers. If Brienne is symbolizing us and Brienne had to change her mind to stop being wrong, it bears asking, how do we have to change our minds to stop being wrong? That’s the question we’re going to answer in this essay chapter.

Brienne’s last minute choice to use Oathkeeper was a moment of great character progression for her. For the duration of the whole chapter, Brienne was very mistrustful of Nimble Dick, and then at the end she finally trusted him in a big way by letting him use her steel sword. Brienne was taking a big risk by arming Nimble Dick, because he could have used the sword to backstab her at a moment when she’s vulnerable, such as during the fight. Brienne’s mistrust is understandable when you consider her life experiences of being tormented and looked down upon by men. Because of Brienne’s past, her character progression here is all the more impressive and meaningful. Due to Brienne’s trust in Nimble Dick, Nimble Dick had the means to protect himself in what Brienne correctly thought could be a dangerous situation. So, contrary to Nimble Dick’s criticisms that Brienne is too mistrustful, Brienne proved him wrong by trusting him when it really counts. In the end, it was the “mistrustful maid’s” trust that saved Nimble Dick’s life.

. . . It makes for a heartwarming interpretation. Perhaps in a more conventional series, that would be the deeper meaning behind this sequence of events. But in our story, Nimble Dick’s life was not saved. Conventional storytelling wisdom suggests that GRRM should have written the story so that Nimble Dick was saved. Conventional storytelling wisdom says that GRRM should have written the story so that Nimble Dick uses the sword Brienne lent him to help Brienne win the fight. Better yet, Nimble Dick rather than Podrick Payne should have been the one to save Brienne, with the sword instead of a stone. That way, Brienne’s survival would have been a direct consequence of her moment of character progression. But in our story, Nimble Dick died horribly before he even got to use the sword.

‘So what does that mean about the other stuff?’ I hear you wondering. ‘Are you suggesting all that was wrong?’ No, every sentence was true except the last one or two.

But, there are two basic categories of possibilities for why the story is written this way. The first is that Nimble Dick’s death is meant to convey a theme or lesson about the harshness of life. Though the thematic progress before Nimble Dick’s death was building up to a wholesome message, Nimble Dick’s death afterwards seems to sabotage that message in a strong way that’s hard to ignore. But maybe that’s the point. Maybe the point is that bad things happen and we shouldn’t let that ruin the good things. In this category, readers are likely to remind us that GRRM is notorious for killing off his characters in order to depict the harshness of life alongside the beauty of life. In this category, we’ll hear readers say things that sound much too glad about meaninglessness. ‘Humans are crazy apes on a swirling ball of mud in a void of empty space, so you better wise up to the meaninglessness of life and learn to like it, because that’s the hard truth.’ If that is not a part of ASOIAF’s philosophy, GRRM sure does a good job of making it seem like it is sometimes.

The second category of possibilities is that Nimble Dick’s death, or more specifically the shock of it for the reader, indicates that the wholesome message contained in the build-up was not as wholesome as it seemed, and that we’re profoundly wrong about something in our interpretation of the build-up. Readers who agree with this category of possibilities are likely to draw attention to the tragedy of Nimble Dick’s death, as though a side character should be treated with that much importance. They may seem confused, as though they don’t really know what their main point is. They’re easy to push from one weakly argued point to another, and they can’t really say what it is that we’re all supposedly so wrong about. After listening to these readers long enough, they may seem driven by a shallow desire to be different for the sake of being different.

Which category of possibilities do you find yourself agreeing with more? Is Nimble Dick’s shocking death conveying a lesson about the harshness of life? Or is Nimble Dick’s shocking death showing us that there’s something in our interpretation of the story that we’re getting wrong?

It’s possible to agree with both, because the first one could fairly be a subcategory of the second one. After all, not already knowing that life is harsh could be the thing in our interpretation that we were getting wrong. But, when you try to keep the two possibilities separate, it’s worth noticing which one resonates with you more than the other.

For me, the second one resonates more. One reason is that one of the most thoroughly established ideas in ASOIAF is that perspective is everything. The chapters that make up the entire series are all written from the characters’ perspectives, after all. Learning and remembering that everything written is subject to the narrator’s unreliability is an omnipresent challenge in ASOIAF. When I hear the “harsh reality” possibility and its supporters treating Nimble Dick’s perspective dismissively because he’s not important enough, it’s as if red lights and sirens begin flashing and blaring in my mind, saying ‘Look over here!’

Granted, Nimble Dick Crabb is not a POV character, but at minimum he is a perspective. He has a particular personality, past, and motivational frame that cause him to see situations differently from the way, say, Brienne is seeing them. And since Brienne is the POV character of this chapter, we probably saw situations the same way Brienne did the first time around. ASOIAF has taught me that almost every perspective matters, no matter how unimportant the character seems. With great frequency, the key insights that the reader needs in order to make progress on whatever mystery is at hand are found by looking closely at a perspective that the readers dismissed as unimportant.

So, the more the readers treat Nimble Dick Crabb’s perspective as unimportant, the more I suspect that Nimble Dick Crabb’s perspective is important. This essay chapter is about putting ourselves in Nimble Dick Crabb’s shoes to see what the story looks like to him, and comparing that to what the story looked like to Brienne and ourselves the first time we read it.

This Brienne chapter’s dramatic through-line is the tense relationship between Brienne and Nimble Dick Crabb. Though their relationship is relatively straightforward, it’s crucial to the Whispers≈TOJ parallel because it provides the biggest cues as to what the ever-so-elusive “moral of the story” is, and how we should try approaching the symbols. In the recipe of symbolic interpretation, if the symbols that we’ve been establishing thus far are the ingredients, then the moral of the story is the oven. So let’s take some time to build our oven so we can put our ingredients inside and let them cook.

As Brienne and the gang travel to the Whispers, the reader comes to trust Nimble Dick less and less. Before we meet him, we already know that he tricked somebody (“fooled a fool”). We also know his name, and his name sounds unsavory enough to inspire mistrust, too — Nimble Dick Crabb. When we meet him, his personality inspires mistrust, too. He avoids answering questions, he speaks crudely, he’s proud of swindling the fool by selling him an unhelpful map, and he withholds the information Brienne wants so he can get some money out of her. We mistrust Dick because he apparently tries to steal money from Brienne’s bag while she’s away. We mistrust him because he tries to scare Podrick with a horror story. We mistrust him because the journey is taking too long. We mistrust him because Brienne thinks the reason there’s a badge torn off his clothes is because he’s probably a deserter. We mistrust him because he wants to sleep in the same places where Brienne and Podrick sleep. We mistrust him because he’s the only person in the group who knows the way in and out of this forest. We mistrust him because Brienne mistrusts him.

Maybe you didn’t mistrust Dick for all of these reasons, but Brienne did. Since we received this chapter through the POV of Brienne, we tend to feel the same way about things that she does.

The scene where Brienne and the reader are introduced to Nimble Dick for the first time immediately depicts Nimble Dick as an unseemly man.

Someone was coming down the cellar steps. Brienne pushed her wine aside as a ragged, scrawny, sharp-faced man with dirty brown hair stepped into the Goose. He gave the Tyroshi sailors a quick look and Brienne a longer one, then went up to the plank. “Wine,” he said, “and none o’ your horse piss in it, thank’e.” (AFFC 14 Brienne III)

Nimble Dick is a ragged man with dirty hair who enters the tavern demanding wine and insulting the innkeeper. Right away, we’re given only reasons to dislike him. Brienne feels the same way.

Brienne did not like the way his fingers played with that gold coin. Still … “Six dragons if we find my sister. Two if we only find the fool. Nothing if nothing is what we find.”

Crabb shrugged. “Six is good. Six will serve.”

Too quick. She caught his wrist before he could tuck the gold away. “Do not play me false. You’ll not find me easy meat.”

When she let go, Crabb rubbed his wrist. “Bloody piss,” he muttered. “You hurt my hand.”

“I am sorry for that. My sister is a girl of three-and-ten. I need to find her before—”

“—before some knight gets in her slit. Aye, I hear you. She’s good as saved. Nimble Dick is with you now. Meet me by east gate at first light. I need t’ see this man about a horse.” (AFFC 14 Brienne III)

Nimble Dick’s introduction in AFFC 14 Brienne III ends with Nimble Dick crassly evoking the image of Sansa being raped by a knight. With these words, Nimble Dick burns the image of sexual violence into our minds, establishing him as a man of questionable character (at best). If that wasn’t enough, in the same breath Nimble Dick offends the ideal of knighthood by suggesting that a knight would commit rape. This is the Brienne chapter just before the one with the Whispers fight, so this is what sets the tone about who Nimble Dick is. He’s an uncouth, opportunistic scoundrel. Even before he stepped onto the stage, one of the few things we knew about him was his name, and his name is Nimble Dick Crabb, for crying out loud. It sounds like the name of a C-list male porn star who has a reputation for pinching girls.

Bear in mind that we hardly know anything for certain about Nimble Dick’s character yet. Most of what we know about him is superficial in nature — concerned only with appearances. In our logical minds, we will know that a person having dirty hair doesn’t necessarily mean he’s a bad person. We will know that a person having a sketchy name and nickname doesn’t necessarily mean he has to be sketchy. Dick is short for Richard, which is a perfectly ordinary name. We will know that his regular patronage at a tavern that serves wine doesn’t necessarily mean he’s a drunkard. Having a drink or two every day doesn’t cause drunkenness. We will know that jibes like the one Nimble Dick made to the barkeeper about her wine tasting like horse piss can be part of a friendly rapport rather than an insult, and that bartenders and their regular patrons often develop such a rapport. And we will probably be familiar with the old adage that you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, at least not too strongly. People deserve a fair chance. But of course, our logical minds were not in charge the first time we read this chapter, because neither is Brienne’s. First impressions last. Thus, in Nimble Dick Crabb, GRRM has created the perfect disguise for a hustler with a heart of gold.

Brienne spends almost the entirety of this long chapter trusting Nimble Dick as little as possible. To be fair to Brienne, Nimble Dick is rough around the edges. But if you reread the chapter with a critical eye and a mind to defend Nimble Dick, what you may see is that Nimble Dick had more cause to mistrust Brienne than Brienne had to mistrust Nimble Dick.

From the first moment Nimble Dick agreed to be Brienne’s guide, she grabbed his hand threateningly and hurt him.

Crabb shrugged. “Six is good. Six will serve.”

Too quick. She caught his wrist before he could tuck the gold away. “Do not play me false. You’ll not find me easy meat.”

When she let go, Crabb rubbed his wrist. “Bloody piss,” he muttered. “You hurt my hand.” (AFFC 14 Brienne III)

Keep in mind that this is an old man who Brienne described in her thoughts as “scrawny.” Though old age and small size don’t necessarily mean he’s harmless, rereading this chapter leaves me thinking ‘Come on, Brienne. Get real.’ The extent of her mistrust of Nimble Dick is absurd, and it’s inappropriate from a warrior of her size and ability.

At first, Brienne told Nimble Dick that she was looking for her sister. After Nimble Dick said the fool had two girls with him instead of one, Brienne changed her story and said the other girl is her sister, too.

“Those two girls are my sisters.”

“Are they, now? Poor little things. Had a sister once meself.” (AFFC 14 Brienne III)

From Nimble Dick’s point of view, Brienne’s sisters apparently changed from a singularity to a plurality in the space of a minute. Based on this, Nimble Dick could probably tell that Brienne was lying to him about something regarding her relationship to the girls. In contrast, Nimble Dick was upfront about the fact that he never saw the girls himself.

Two girls?” Could the other one be Arya?

“Well,” the man said, “I never seen the little sweets, mind you, but he was wanting passage for three.” (AFFC 14 Brienne III)

At every turn of this journey, Nimble Dick told stories and sang songs. When the eeriness of the forest became overwhelming and nobody felt like singing, Nimble Dick sang anyway, apparently in an attempt to raise the group’s spirits. It didn’t work, but he tried.

Nimble Dick told about the histories of every rock and hill, and he shared the stories of them because this is his homeland. A person could hardly ask for a better guide than this.

Nimble Dick made every effort to be friendly with Brienne, but nothing could soften her heart. He cooperated with her demands even when he disagreed, he suffered the greatest discomforts, risks and privations out of anybody in the group, and he may very well have been telling the truth in the moments when Brienne was certain that he was lying. For instance…

Thiefy McFlour Hands

Crabb showed his true colors the next day, when they stopped to water the horses. Brienne had to step behind some bushes to empty her bladder. As she was squatting, she heard Podrick say, “What are you doing? You get away from there.” She finished her business, hiked up her breeches, and returned to the road to find Nimble Dick wiping flour off his fingers. “You won’t find any dragons in my saddlebags,” she told him. “I keep my gold upon my person.” Some of it was in the pouch at her belt, the rest hidden in a pair of pockets sewn inside her clothing. The fat purse inside her saddlebag was filled with coppers large and small, pennies and halfpennies, groats and stars … and fine white flour, to make it fatter still. She had bought the flour from the cook at the Seven Swords the morning she rode out from Duskendale.

“Dick meant no harm, m’lady.” He wriggled his flour-spotted fingers to show he held no weapon. “I was only looking to see if you had these dragons what you promised me. The world’s full o’ liars, ready to cheat an honest man. Not that you’re one.”

Brienne hoped he was a better guide than he was a thief. “We had best be going.” She mounted up again. (AFFC 20 Brienne IV)

While Brienne was away from her horse, Nimble Dick took the opportunity to reach a hand into a coin bag in her saddlebag. Podrick saw him and called out. When Brienne returned, she found Nimble Dick with his hand covered in flour, marking him for a thief. Nimble Dick explained that he was only checking to make sure Brienne had the gold she promised.

I can see that Brienne doesn’t believe him, because in her thoughts she calls him a thief.

Brienne hoped he was a better guide than he was a thief. (AFFC 20 Brienne IV)

Brienne’s thoughts explain the flour like this:

“I keep my gold upon my person.” Some of it was in the pouch at her belt, the rest hidden in a pair of pockets sewn inside her clothing. The fat purse inside her saddlebag was filled with coppers large and small, pennies and halfpennies, groats and stars … and fine white flour, to make it fatter still. She had bought the flour from the cook at the Seven Swords the morning she rode out from Duskendale. (AFFC 20 Brienne IV)

Based on Brienne’s thoughts here, we can see that Brienne foresaw the possibility that her guide might try to steal from her, even before she met him. She bought the flour the morning when she rode out from Duskendale, but at that point she hadn’t met Nimble Dick yet. Still, she bought the flour as a protective measure against her guide’s thievery. After she met Nimble Dick and bought his guidance to the Whispers, she poured the flour into the coin bag. She kept her least valuable coins in the bag and her most valuable coins on her person.

Because of Brienne’s foresight and preparation, the reader comes away with the impression that Brienne has good judgement about Nimble Dick — he’s an untrustworthy, selfish, sneaky, perverted creep who’s willing to lie, cheat, and steal when he thinks he can get away with it and when there’s something for him to gain. But when you look at the situation from the standpoint of Nimble Dick, his explanation may have actually been the truth. After all, Nimble Dick doesn’t know if Brienne is good for the gold she promised him, because she never showed it to him. It’s a lot of gold to him, and this is a long and uncomfortable journey, so his concern about payment is totally reasonable. Brienne has already paid him two silver and one gold coin for information, but one gold coin is a far cry from six.

Granted, reaching into her coin bag was the wrong way for Nimble Dick to go about learning if Brienne has the gold. He probably should have asked her politely to show him the gold she promised him.

But, imagine that he did. Imagine that Nimble Dick had approached Brienne respectfully and directly asked her to show him the gold to prove her ability to pay him. How do you think Brienne would have responded? Well, probably in the same ways that she responded to everything else Nimble Dick asked of her: By being snappy, short-tempered, prickly, suspicious, and altogether more unpleasant than she was to begin with. It’s no wonder why Nimble Dick thought it would be better to simply check her coin bag while she’s away. That way, she never has to know about it, and he can have peace of mind, knowing that he is not investing himself into a days-long trek through the woods just to be cheated out of payment at the end. She lied about her sisters already, she could lie about gold, too.

Brienne’s line that she “hoped he was a better guide than he was a thief” convicts Dick of attempted thievery. But the equally viable flipside of that observation is that if Dick were truly trying to steal from her, he probably would not have been stupid enough to do it the way he did, in broad daylight while both group members were awake. That Dick checked Brienne’s coin bag in the day time in full view of Podrick Payne while Brienne was awake and within shouting distance may demonstrate that Nimble Dick was not overly concerned with getting caught because he was not intending to steal in the first place. Additionally, inasmuch as getting caught reaching into Brienne’s saddlebag could have resulted in costs of various kinds to Nimble Dick, the fact that he did it anyway can suggest that a counterweighing cost of greater proportion was at stake for Nimble Dick, which alludes to the points I made about six gold coins being a lot more money to Nimble Dick than it is to Brienne of Tarth, and about a days-long trek through the woods being a great investment of time, resources, energy, and opportunity cost for Nimble Dick.

The scene illustrates a problem with being too mistrustful. You can’t learn if a person is trustworthy if you won’t trust him with anything. Dick did everything a person in his situation could have done to assuage Brienne’s worries about him, short of cowtowing, groveling, or flattering. But as a self-respecting man, he simply wouldn’t be cowed. And as the ending shows, nothing except dying could earn him Brienne’s trust. A lot of good her trust did him then!

An Honorable Gesture

Brienne sheathed Oathkeeper, gathered up Dick Crabb, and carried him to the hole. His face was hard to look on. “I’m sorry that I never trusted you. I don’t know how to do that anymore.” (AFFC 20 Brienne IV)

After the fight, as Nimble Dick lay dead, Brienne insisted upon burying him out of respect. Her thoughts show that she finally realized that he was trustworthy after all, even though he died before he could do anything in the fight to prove his trustworthiness further than he already had. Dick’s brutal death shocked Brienne into sympathy for him and finally forced her feelings about him to be rejoined with reality.

Podrick helped her lower Nimble Dick into his hole. By the time they were done the moon was rising. Brienne rubbed the dirt from her hands and tossed two dragons down into the grave.

“Why did you do that, my lady? Ser?” asked Pod.

“It was the reward I promised him for finding me the fool.”

Laughter sounded from behind them. She ripped Oathkeeper from her sheath and whirled, expecting more Bloody Mummers … but it was only Hyle Hunt atop the crumbling wall, his legs crossed. “If there are brothels down in hell, the wretch will thank you,” the knight called down. “Elsewise, that’s a waste of good gold.”

“I keep my promises. What are you doing here?” (AFFC 20 Brienne IV)

Brienne tossed two gold coins into Nimble Dick’s grave in order to keep her part of the bargain (“Two if we only find the fool.”). It’s a sentimental thing to do. Hyle Hunt laughed at the gesture and said it’s a waste of gold because Nimble Dick can’t use it now. This exchange highlights that Brienne came to her senses about Nimble Dick too late. The futility of the gesture shows that it has nothing to do with helping Nimble Dick and everything to do with making herself feel better. This gesture tracks with the thematic question about honor. Because, while the gesture is undeniably good in spirit, it is useless or counter-productive in practice. So, too, goes the criticism against honor, that’s made by Nimble Dick Crabb and by many readers.

Brienne channels the feelings that scare her through her honor. It’s her way of avoiding processing her emotions so that she doesn’t have to confront them. She feels romantic love for Renly but she fears it will never be returned because she’s outwardly ugly, so she channels her love through honor and commits to protecting him for life. Similarly, she feels romantic love for Jaime but she fears it will never be returned, so she channels it through honor. Brienne swears to redeem Jaime’s honor by finding Sansa and Arya. As with Renly and Jaime, with Nimble Dick Brienne feels a feeling that scares her — guilt for mistrusting Nimble Dick and getting him killed — so she channels that feeling through honor by giving due payment to his corpse. But obvious to most people, protecting Renly will never make Renly love her, redeeming Jaime’s honor will never make Jaime love her, and giving two gold to a corpse she created is no real payment at all.

Brienne knows deep down that she killed Nimble Dick as much as Shagwell did, and that’s what scares her. Had she seen Nimble Dick for who he really is, she would have recognized that rather than giving him a sword so that he can help in the fight, she should have protected him by entering the Whispers alone.

Brienne is not a knight, but inasmuch as she wants to be one, she should have remembered that knights protect the weak and innocent, no matter if the knight doesn’t personally like that person. This was not Nimble Dick’s fight to fight, it was Brienne’s. Nimble Dick promised to take her to the Whispers, and that’s what he did. Brienne did the right thing by sending Podrick away, but she failed to recognize that she needed to protect Nimble Dick, too. Brienne should have sent Nimble Dick away with Podrick, set Nimble Dick to guarding the entrance, the horses, or instructed him to stay out of the fight. What Nimble Dick would have done after that is Nimble Dick’s prerogative, but Brienne needed to try to protect him in one of those ways.

Dick steel sword brienne whispers

Had Brienne not used her magic sword, Nimble Dick never would have known that she had a second sword, and Nimble Dick being unarmed would have been a great pretext for Brienne to use as the reason why he should not enter the Whispers with her. In this way, the magic sword had the power to save a life if only its owner had restrained herself from using it, like her childhood hero Ser Galladon.

Nimble Dick’s presence in the fight did nothing to help Brienne win it. Shagwell killing Nimble Dick didn’t buy Brienne time to fight someone else, because Brienne didn’t spend that time fighting anyone else. After Shagwell killed Nimble Dick, everybody stood around talking for a while before the fight began. Nimble Dick’s knee and face didn’t damage Shagwell’s morningstar. Nimble Dick’s dead body didn’t even obstruct the bad guys from reaching Brienne. The entire situation and fight scene is written in such a way that it renders Nimble Dick’s death absolutely unhelpful in any way to Brienne’s victory. Yet, except for Podrick’s stonethrow, Brienne won the fight by herself anyway. One potential meaning of all this is pretty straightforward in retrospect: Nimble Dick should not have been in the fight to begin with.

A Sword Too Many

It rained all that day. The narrow track they followed soon turned to mud beneath them. What trees they saw were naked, and the steady rain had turned their fallen leaves into a sodden brown mat. Despite its squirrel-skin lining, Dick’s cloak soaked through, and she could see him shivering. Brienne felt a moment’s pity for the man. He has not eaten well, that’s plain. She wondered if there truly was a smugglers’ cove, or a ruined castle called the Whispers. Hungry men do desperate things. This all might be some ploy to cozen her. Suspicion soured her stomach.

For a time it seemed as though the steady wash of rain was the only sound in the world. Nimble Dick plowed on, heedless. She watched closely, noting how he bent his back, as if huddling low in the saddle would keep him dry. This time there was no village close at hand when darkness came upon them. Nor were there any trees to give them shelter. They were forced to camp amongst some rocks, fifty yards above the tideline. The rocks at least would keep the wind off. “Best we keep a watch tonight, m’lady,” Crabb told her, as she was struggling to get a driftwood fire lit. “A place like this, there might be squishers.” (AFFC 20 Brienne IV)

Throughout this chapter, we see Brienne see Nimble Dick shivering in the cold, sleeping in the cold, sleeping in the rain, going hungry, and slumping over pitifully in his saddle. Instead of thinking he’s hurting, hungry, and tired, she seems to think he’s stupid.

Feelings of pity for Nimble Dick begin to creep into Brienne’s heart, telling a story of a cold and hungry old man who has been pushed to the limit of what his body can tolerate. But immediately after her pity, it’s as if some hateful propagandist steps into her thoughts to rewrite the story of what’s obviously happening with Dick. Nimble Dick’s shivering, slumping, and hunger are evidence of some great deception he’s doing against her, she thinks. He must be very devoted to the ruse in order to go to all this trouble without complaint, but hungry men do desperate things, after all.

Many of the discomforts Nimble Dick suffered were unnecessary, and they were consequences of Brienne not trusting Nimble Dick enough to let him sleep in better conditions. Despite that, Nimble Dick managed to maintain enough good will to entertain the group with a spooky campfire story about a local monster called squishers. Still, it wasn’t enough to charm Brienne or move her from her mistrust. If anything, the lie of the fable only made her more mistrustful.

Though Brienne finally trusted Nimble Dick at the end in a big way (she gave him a sword at a risky moment), all the mistrust that preceded that moment can cause a discerning reader to wonder if Brienne was really moved by trust at all, or by something else. Perhaps a self-interested wish not to face the danger alone.

I think the right answer is something inbetween. I think trust was not really what moved Brienne to give Nimble Dick the sword, and that Brienne also did not want to face the danger alone. It seems to me that most of the explanation for what happened is that after deciding to wield Oathkeeper, Brienne realized that she had a spare sword, and she saw no reason not to put the spare sword to use by putting it into the hands of Nimble Dick, who by all rights is a man grown.

In that interpretation, the availability of a spare sword is much of what caused Brienne’s misstep. And Brienne’s decision to use Oathkeeper is what created the availability of a sword. So, Nimble Dick’s death relates to what we explored earlier from this chapter involving honor and Ser Galladon of Morne’s magic sword. In a perverse way, it could be said that Nimble Dick sowed the seeds of his own death when he mocked Ser Galladon for not using his magic sword. If only he had known that Brienne would be so easily influenced by his comments. Uprightly, perhaps I should say instead that Brienne should not have been so easily affected by a little bit of mockery. The ease at which she was influenced to abandon her lifelong ideal of honor is constant with what I said about honor being a tool for self-comfort to Brienne.

Yet, there’s another attitude in Brienne that’s impossible to ignore because it features so prominently in this and many of Brienne’s chapters, and I think it was at play in this situation, too. Nimble Dick is not merely a person who Brienne mistrusts, he’s a person who belongs to an identity that Brienne mistrusts collectively.

If Brienne’s encounter with Nimble Dick had been an encounter with Nimble Dick moreso than an encounter with a man, she might have seen him for who he really is — a personable, well-meaning, and amusing old coot who tells it like it is. True enough, some knight getting in Sansa’s slit is an accurate summary of the horrors that can visit a highborn maid who doesn’t have sufficient protection on the road, no matter how offensive Nimble Dick’s language or chivalrous the knight’s vows.

As if to dispel the last doubts about whether Brienne’s adventure with Nimble Dick Crabb is meant to portray Brienne’s mistrust of Nimble Dick Crabb alone or of Men The Collective, Brienne’s mistrust of Nimble Dick Crabb licenses a simple description of this adventure that can scarcely be a coincidence on the part of the author: Brienne doesn’t trust Dick.

In true fantasy form, through Nimble Dick Crabb’s name the voice of the story cheekily transforms into the voice of the author. It’s as if GRRM is claiming the last word in the argument about what this part of the story is really about between Brienne’s mistrust of one man and Brienne’s mistrust of all men. “Dick” can refer to Nimble Dick Crabb, or to men collectively, or to the male sex organ. The sentence remains true no matter which meaning we use. This relates to Brienne’s sexual repression that I alluded to when I said Brienne’s feelings scare her. The underlying recognition is that the author could have chosen any name imaginable for the character who guides Brienne to the Whispers after making a dick first impression of himself, yet he chose Dick, and he nimbly hid it between a Nimble nickname and Crabb — an animal as offputting as the offspring of a tarantula and a scorpion.

In contrast to GRRM’s alleged tropebreaker habits, a surprising element of this recontextualization is that Martin adheres to the fantasy tradition of naming characters what they are, reminiscent of Lewis Carroll’s rabbit White Rabbit, C.S. Lewis’s beaver Mr. Beaver, and J.K. Rowling’s werewolf Professor Lupin.

Helpful Hand Or Murderous Mitt?

When Brienne approached a cliff to look over the edge of it, Nimble Dick walked over to point something out to her.

“That’s the old beacon tower,” said Nimble Dick as he came up behind her. “It fell when I was half as old as Pods here. Used to be steps down to the cove, but when the cliff collapsed they went too. The smugglers stopped landing here after that. Time was, they could row their boats into the cave, but no more. See?” He put one hand on her back, and pointed with the other.

Brienne’s flesh prickled. One shove, and I’ll be down there with the tower. She stepped back. “Keep your hands off me.”

Crabb made a face. “I was only …”

“I don’t care what you were only. Where’s the gate?” (AFFC 20 Brienne IV)

This touch caused Brienne’s flesh to prickle, and she thinks to herself “One shove, and I’ll be down there with the tower.” This shows us in certain terms that Brienne thinks Nimble Dick may want to kill her.

Who am I to question Brienne’s intuition? I’m not the one living out her scenario, she is. Surely that makes her a better judge of Nimble Dick than I am.

While that’s a reasonable assumption in general, it’s also reasonable to say that murder is far beyond anything Nimble Dick has done so far. Based on the sum of everything Nimble Dick has yet shown himself to be, Brienne’s fear that he may want to murder her is paranoid. Maybe if Brienne hadn’t treated him so poorly for the whole journey, she wouldn’t have given him as much reason to resent her, and she wouldn’t feel the need to worry so much.

There are two viable interpretations of Nimble Dick that are running through this whole chapter — the one in which Nimble Dick seems suspiciously like he’s trying to lull Brienne into a sense of false security for some nefarious purpose, and the one in which Nimble Dick is genuinely trying to be helpful and friendly but Brienne’s mistrust is inconsolable. The first interpretation is the one a first-time reader will have. The second interpretation may only become visible on a second or later reading, once the reader knows that the chapter ends with the murder of Nimble Dick and Brienne’s guilt about not trusting him.

Brienne The Maid

Brienne paid the villagers a few coppers to allow them to bed down in a hay barn. She claimed the loft for Podrick and herself, and pulled the ladder up after them.

“You leave me down here alone, I could bloody well steal your horses,” Crabb called up from below. “Best you get them up the ladder too, m’lady.” When she ignored him, he went on to say, “It’s going to rain tonight. A cold hard rain. You and Pods will sleep all snug and warm, and poor old Dick will be shivering down here by myself.” He shook his head, muttering, as he made a bed on a pile of hay. “I never knew such a mistrustful maid as you.”

Brienne curled up beneath her cloak, with Podrick yawning at her side. I was not always wary, she might have shouted down at Crabb. When I was a little girl I believed that all men were as noble as my father. (AFFC 20 Brienne IV)

Brienne’s mistrust of men the collective is neither entirely misguided nor unsympathetically earned. She had a traumatic experience when Hyle Hunt and his friends played a cruel joke on her, for one thing. And as Nimble Dick himself implied, there are enough bad men in the world that even an elevated class of men who swore vows to protect women and the weak has its share of would-be rapers.

But at the end of the day, those are exceptions to the rule. Much of Brienne’s internal struggle is that she needs to find the balanced medium between fully trusting and fully mistrusting every man she meets. She needs to learn discernment. Until she can do that, the blind spot that’s being portrayed in Brienne in the situation where she got Nimble Dick killed will continue to characterize her experiences wherever they involve men.

A silver lining is that Brienne’s contempt for men does not seem to automatically apply to young men such as her teenage squire Podrick Payne. Maybe, like Howland the shady crannogman and Ned the honor obsessed snow paladin, Podrick Payne will be the unlikely friendship formed that provides the falsification Brienne needs of the misandrist outlook she’s flirting with.

Galladon’s Honor, Tower of Joy Cues

To summarize what we’ve covered so far, let’s put it all together as it relates to the Whispers≈TOJ parallel we’re working on.

  • Brienne’s contempt for Nimble Dick prevents her from having compassion for him.
  • Brienne’s contempt for Nimble Dick prevents her from being honorable.
  • Being a man and named Dick, Nimble Dick is symbolic of men collectively.
  • Therefore, Brienne’s contempt for Nimble Dick is symbolic of Brienne’s contempt for men collectively.
  • Because we agreed with Brienne at first, Brienne is symbolic of the audience.
  • Therefore, Brienne’s contempt for Nimble Dick is symbolic of the audience’s contempt for men collectively.

Because the reader didn’t notice the first time around that Brienne’s mistrust of Nimble Dick comes from her hatred of men, it can fairly be said that what the story is suggesting is that, like Brienne, the audience has a deeply ingrained hatred of men, and that that’s what prevents us from noticing that Nimble Dick is a trustworthy fellow, from making progress on the Tower of Joy mystery, and perhaps from making progress on other mysteries, too. Likewise, the story is suggesting that our hatred of men is what prevents us from understanding what’s wrong with honor in the hypothetical match-up between Ser Galladon of Morne and Ser Clarence Crabb.

It’s time we tie a bow on a thread we wove in Chapter 5. ‘What’s the matter with honor, then?’

The problem with Ser Galladon’s honor is that, actually, there is nothing wrong with Ser Galladon’s honor. Rather, there is something wrong with Brienne’s (and the reader’s) understanding of Ser Galladon’s honor.

When Nimble Dick challenged Brienne about Ser Galladon not using his magic sword, Brienne answered “honor.”

Crabb thought that was hilarious. “The Perfect Knight? The Perfect Fool, he sounds like. What’s the point o’ having some magic sword if you don’t bloody well use it?”

“Honor,” she said. “The point is honor.” (AFFC 20 Brienne IV)

Honor is the correct answer, so Brienne’s intuition is good. But describing how the answer is correct is more difficult. Like Brienne, we may have a sense of certainty that honor is a good and worthwhile thing to strive for and that ultimately it pays off well, even for the person who’s being honorable, but we may not be able to persuasively describe how that happens in a given situation.

To describe it, I’ll draw from my background of video gaming. Indeed, I think much of my ability to work the literary puzzles in ASOIAF was developed when I was playing video games through my childhood and teens, and most people are familiar with video games these days, so I may as well do homage to the hobby.

Some video games allow you to select the difficulty level of the game. Typically, these difficulty levels are called Easy Mode, Normal Mode, and Hard Mode. Some games expand these options to four, five, or more, but these three are enough to make my point. Ser Galladon’s decision to not use the Just Maid against mortals is like Ser Galladon choosing to play the game on Hard Mode. What do you think will happen to Ser Galladon’s fighting skills when he gets used to playing on Hard Mode? Probably the same thing that happens to my skills when I change the difficulty level of a video game from normal to hard — his skills will improve in order to win.

As the tale goes, Ser Galladon of Morne is depicted as a world class fighter in his time. Needless to say, becoming a world class fighter is hard, and you know you’re never going to do the things you need to do in order to achieve it unless you have to. So, if you’re wise, you arrange your circumstances so that you have to. That’s what Galladon was doing when he decided never to use the Just Maid against mortals.

sword Just Maid galladon

Increasing the difficulty of anything can be dangerous if it isn’t done selectively. After all, if Galladon were to restrain himself from using his magic sword while his opponent is an immortal, Galladon would surely be killed. Almost by definition, a fight against an immortal is not a winnable fight for a mortal. So, the principle should only be applied in situations that pose a survivable amount of danger. The risk of misusing the principle this way is why the principle tends to be intuitive to men and unintuitive to women. Men on average are more willing to take risks than women on average. But, when the principle is applied with wisdom, it is greatly productive. By neglecting to use his magic sword against mortals, Ser Galladon subjected himself to the maximum amount of danger that mortals can pose. Because of that, the only thing left to protect Galladon from defeat was his will to win and live. That’s how Galladon’s honor was the source of Galladon’s valor, and that’s one mechanism by which honor pays off in the end despite its cost early on.

This description of honor fits well with other details of the Ser Galladon story. In Ser Galladon’s story, the Maiden fell in love with Galladon for his valor and rewarded him with the Just Maid. To put it another way, the reason Galladon received a magic sword was not that the Maiden fell in love with him, it was that he had valor. The Maiden just happened to be attracted to valor. Once he received the magic sword, he knew its potency would degrade his valor if he became dependent on it, so that’s why he refused to use it except against immortals.

The lesson Brienne took from the Ser Galladon of Morne story was approximately ‘Forget honor, don’t hold back your power when it really counts.’ The irony of the situation is that if Brienne had not allowed herself to be persuaded off the code of honor that made her hero Ser Galladon honorable, then Ser Galladon’s story would have prevented Brienne from getting Nimble Dick killed by giving him a spare sword.

Recall the story of Ser Goodwin’s lesson to Brienne.

It may be that I will need to kill him [mysterious follower Hyle Hunt], she told herself one night as she paced about the camp. The notion made her queasy. Her old master-at-arms had always questioned whether she was hard enough for battle. “You have a man’s strength in your arms,” Ser Goodwin had said to her, more than once, “but your heart is as soft as any maid’s. It is one thing to train in the yard with a blunted sword in hand, and another to drive a foot of sharpened steel into a man’s gut and see the light go out of his eyes.” To toughen her, Ser Goodwin used to send her to her father’s butcher to slaughter lambs and suckling pigs. The piglets squealed and the lambs screamed like frightened children. By the time the butchering was done Brienne had been blind with tears, her clothes so bloody that she had given them to her maid to burn. But Ser Goodwin still had doubts. “A piglet is a piglet. It is different with a man. When I was a squire young as you, I had a friend who was strong and quick and agile, a champion in the yard. We all knew that one day he would be a splendid knight. Then war came to the Stepstones. I saw my friend drive his foeman to his knees and knock the axe from his hand, but when he might have finished he held back for half a heartbeat. In battle half a heartbeat is a lifetime. The man slipped out his dirk and found a chink in my friend’s armor. His strength, his speed, his valor, all his hard-won skill … it was worth less than a mummer’s fart, because he flinched from killing. Remember that, girl.”

I will, she promised his shade, there in the piney wood. She sat down on a rock, took out her sword, and began to hone its edge. I will remember, and I pray I will not flinch. (AFFC 20 Brienne IV)

Brienne’s memory of Ser Goodwin’s lesson served as a tie-breaker opinion on whether Ser Galladon is honorable or foolish to not use his magic sword against mortal men. So, Ser Goodwin is one reason Brienne didn’t get the “good win.” She won the fight, but it was a bad win because she got an innocent killed and she betrayed the ideal that her hero Ser Galladon stood for.

‘But aren’t you being too hard on Brienne?’ I hear you saying. Indeed, Brienne was against three enemies at the same time. They were armed with some serious weaponry such as the spear and morningstar. They even had some scraps of armor. These three men are battle hardened from their time in the War of the Five Kings, so they probably have experience fighting. Additionally, the “magic” of Brienne’s magic sword made a difference in the fight. As we can see in Brienne’s attack against Pyg, Oathkeeper’s exceptional sharpness is what allowed Oathkeeper to bite through all of Pyg’s protection.

He jerked his broken blade up to protect his face, but as he went high she went low. Oathkeeper bit through leather, wool, skin, and muscle, into the sellsword’s thigh. Pyg cut back wildly as his leg went out from under him. His broken sword scraped against her chain mail before he landed on his back. Brienne stabbed him through the throat, (…) (AFFC 20 Brienne IV)

And as we can see in Brienne’s fight against Timeon, Oathkeeper’s exceptional sharpness is what allowed Oathkeeper to pierce Timeon’s chain mail byrnie, and maybe his spear head, too.

She flew at Timeon.

He was better than Pyg, but he had only a short throwing spear, and she had a Valyrian steel blade. Oathkeeper was alive in her hands. She had never been so quick. The blade became a grey blur. He wounded her in the shoulder as she came at him, but she slashed off his ear and half his cheek, hacked the head off his spear, and put a foot of rippled steel into his belly through the links of the chain mail byrnie he was wearing.

Timeon was still trying to fight as she pulled her blade from him, its fullers running red with blood. He clawed at his belt and came up with a dagger, so Brienne cut his hand off. That one was for Jaime. “Mother have mercy,” the Dornishman gasped, the blood bubbling from his mouth and spurting from his wrist. “Finish it. Send me back to Dorne, you bloody bitch.”

She did. (AFFC 20 Brienne IV)

Brienne didn’t use her sword against Shagwell, she killed him with a dagger, so there’s no sword magic to see there.

So there! Oathkeeper’s magical sharpness had a verifiable effect on the outcome of at least three things: The attacks against Pyg’s leather, Timeon’s chain mail, and Timeon’s spear head. Oathkeeper’s magical speed also certainly had an effect on the outcome of every swing, making each attack faster than it would have been if Brienne had used the sword made of regular steel.

However, at the end of all these Valyrian steel observations, the pertinent question is not really answered, is it?

The pertinent question is ‘Would Brienne have won the fight without permanent injury if she had used the regular steel sword instead of the Valyrian steel sword?’ I don’t know the answer to that. And more to the point, neither does Brienne. The only way to know was to try it, and Brienne didn’t try it.

Like my feelings about myself after I beat a video game on Normal Mode, a careful examination of Brienne’s victory in the Whispers fight leaves me with the feeling that Brienne probably could have won reasonably well on Hard Mode, too, if she had tried. Thus, the victory loses some of its savor.

How much more skillful, knowledgeable, faster and precise do I become at a video game after I played it on Hard Mode compared to after I played it on Normal Mode? The difference in my abilities is quite noticeable when I do it, but that does require me to actually do it. Likewise, how much faster, stronger, knowledgeable, precise, and dare I say “valiant” would Brienne become if she were not using her magic sword against mortal foes? As in Galladon’s irresistible valor, the difference is probably quite noticeable when she does it… but that does require her to actually do it.

‘But aren’t you being too hard on Ser Goodwin?’ I don’t hear you saying. Indeed, Ser Goodwin was probably not trying to teach Brienne a cynical lesson that brutality is a virtue in men. He was probably trying to scare her away from what he considers a young Tarth princess’s foolish fixation on becoming a warrior. The intended message of Ser Goodwin’s story may likely have been as straightforward as ‘War is nasty business. You think you want to be a warrior, but you don’t.’ But as we acknowledged earlier about honor, describing the mechanism by which something is good and right is sometimes more difficult than knowing deep down that it is. With things as old and important as war and honor, the knowing is often within us long before a description arrives to justify it.

The Moral of the Story

In the end, Brienne should not have used her magic sword in this fight, after all. She failed to uphold the knightly oath to protect the weak and innocent when she included Nimble Dick in the fight, because since Nimble Dick was a man and she didn’t like him, she didn’t recognize that he’s somebody she ought to protect. Being no knight, it’s an oath she never swore, so her hands are technically clean. Still, it’s enough to render Lord Randyll Tarly’s words prophetic by mortal standards.

“I have been sent to look for … for …” She hesitated.

“How will you find him if you do not know his name? Did you slay Lord Renly?”

“No.”

Tarly weighed the word. He is judging me, as he judged those others. “No,” he said at last, “you only let him die.” (AFFC 14 Brienne III)

In essay chapter 5, I said well-done symbolic interpretation is uniquely marked by its explanatory power over not just the things in the story but also the story’s effect on its audience. Symbolic interpretation’s explanatory power over the story is not unique. Other kinds of interpretation can explain things in the story just fine. But there are some questions only symbolic interpretation can answer, and those tend to be the questions the audience is mostly asking. They’re the story’s mysteries, like “What do the Others want?”, “Who is Azor Ahai?”, and “What’s up with Rhaegar?” So what really distinguishes symbolic interpretation from other kinds of interpretation is its explanatory power over the story’s effect on the audience. It explains the story through its explanation of the audience.

For each reader, the most accessible part of the audience is him or her self. I have a depth of access to what I’m thinking and feeling that I can never have to what another person is thinking and feeling. The value of this access can be sabotaged, however, by not paying attention to myself or not being honest with myself. Accessing the answers to ASOIAF’s most famous mysteries demands an amount of attention to and honesty with oneself that is rare, and that usually takes a long time to cultivate.

For instance, Brienne first told Dick that she was looking for her sister, and then after Dick said there were two girls instead of one, Brienne changed her story so that she’s looking for her two sisters. Ask yourself if you noticed before I pointed it out that Brienne changed her story. Don’t answer me, answer yourself. Did you really notice that? I didn’t notice it until I reread these chapters with the specific goal in mind to look at situations from Dick’s perspective instead of Brienne’s. If you didn’t notice it, are you able to admit that to yourself? Does your mind try to deny that you didn’t notice it? Is it grasping for a rationalization? Is it making up a story or an excuse? Those are all things that my mind likes to do when it learns that it’s guilty of some oversight or misapprehension, especially if the oversight reflects poorly on my values.

To find the answers to ASOIAF’s mysteries, at minimum you have to be the kind of person who can admit to himself when his thoughts, feelings or expectations about the story were wrong. For better results, you also have to actively seek evidence in the story that you’re wrong. For even better results, you have to do that when you’re mostly right and only a little wrong. Your interpretive errors are perhaps your most potent clues about what the “moral of the story” might be, and that applies no matter how big or small the piece of the story you’re handling is — one little sentence or the whole kit and caboodle.

After noticing that Brienne’s easily detectable lie was probably noticed by Nimble Dick, too, and how it gives Nimble Dick reason to mistrust Brienne, and that I failed to notice it the first time around, that’s enough of a cue from the story for me to start considering that this chapter’s lesson to me, or “moral”, has something to do with my failure to notice that Nimble Dick has good reason to mistrust Brienne. In a chapter that seems like it’s about Brienne having good reasons to mistrust Nimble Dick, Nimble Dick having a good reason to mistrust Brienne is quite the reversal of my first impression. For a reader who’s actively seeking evidence that he’s wrong about something, this stands out in a big way. For a reader who isn’t, it’s easy to write it off.

‘Maybe Brienne learned just now from Nimble Dick that her second sister is missing, too. Nimble Dick wouldn’t be able to know she’s lying.’ Perhaps not, but then again, how could Brienne know the second girl is her sister too if she had no reason to think her second sister was lost before now? If before now Brienne apparently thought her second sister was safe and accounted for, wouldn’t she have wondered at the identity of the girl her sister is traveling with? Some companion chance met on the road, most like. No matter how we look at it, Brienne’s change of story should be more than a little fishy from the perspective of Nimble Dick.

Symbols Preserved in the Crypt: Nimble Dick Crabb≈Lord Dustin

Since this interpretation recontextualizes Brienne as less heroic than we thought, (which is another way of saying more villainous than we thought), and since Brienne is symbolic of Ned in the overarching Whispers≈TOJ symbol, this suggests that our feelings about Ned will be recontextualized the same way when we learn all there is to learn about the Tower of Joy.

As if to hint of a villainous recontextualization of Ned’s actions at the Tower of Joy, Barbrey Dustin’s anger toward Ned for getting her husband killed at the Tower of Joy became observable to the reader in ADWD, during her conversation with Theon in the Winterfell crypt.

“Ned Stark returned the horse to me on his way back home to Winterfell. He told me that my lord had died an honorable death, that his body had been laid to rest beneath the red mountains of Dorne. He brought his sister’s bones back north, though, and there she rests … but I promise you, Lord Eddard’s bones will never rest beside hers. I mean to feed them to my dogs.” (ADWD 41 The Turncloak)

This recontextualization of Ned is also present in this Whispers situation with our Ned symbol, Brienne. Just as Barbrey’s perspective rubs against the reader’s admiration of Ned for including someone in the fight at the Tower of Joy who died and was buried there, so does Nimble Dick’s perspective rub against the reader’s admiration of Brienne for including Nimble Dick in the fight at the Tower of Joy symbol, the Whispers, who died and was buried there.

In this way, our TOJ symbols successfully predicted the story again. And my analysis of it too, it would seem. I did not notice this connection to House Dustin until I was writing this essay chapter. Before then, Barbrey Dustin was the furthest character from my mind while handling the Whispers and Tower of Joy parallel. The frequency at which connections like this one occur to me used to shock me. But now, a couple of years after I’ve worked out most of ASOIAF’s philosophy and mysteries, they occur to me almost every time I read a chapter. They’re bound to occur to you more frequently too if you continue studying the story. But as you may now understand better from this essay chapter, you won’t like everything you learn. My only promises are that my analysis and the answers therein will be true, will give you a greater understanding of the story, will accurately predict the future of the story, and will stand the test of time. I make no promise that they will be popular.

In my original interpretation, Brienne’s decision to give Nimble Dick a sword was her moment of character progression. Ostensibly, Brienne had overcome her mistrust of men the collective and finally trusted man an individual. She was able to put aside the hatreds and resentments that cause her to see a collective when looking at an individual, and that’s why she was able to see the individual for who he really is. But now that I know Brienne’s decision was a failure of honor, which resulted in Nimble Dick’s death, it puts a major damper on the character progression interpretation. By now we should be questioning if putting aside her hatred for men was really what caused Brienne to give Nimble Dick a sword at all.

Did Brienne really see Nimble Dick for the disagreeable yet ultimately trustworthy individual he is? Or was she compelled to give him a sword by some other reason?

There are two other main possibilities that I see for why Brienne gave Nimble Dick the sword. The first possibility is that Brienne was compelled to give him the sword by her fear of facing a scary situation alone. Descriptions of fear setting into Brienne are readily available to suit this possibility. For example, she begins to imagine that the eerie sounds that are coming from beneath the ground are indeed the severed heads from the Ser Clarence Crabb story, despite the fact that she invalidated those same fears when Podrick Payne voiced them. For another example, she gets a creepy feeling that causes her to hesitate just before she enters the Whispers.

The postern door resisted for a moment, then jerked open, its hinges screaming protest. The sound made the hairs on the back of Brienne’s neck stand up. She drew her sword. Even in mail and boiled leather, she felt naked. (AFFC 20 Brienne IV)

The second possibility is that Brienne was compelled to give Nimble Dick the sword because she considered him too weak to be able to harm her much with it anyway. I think this possibility is closer to the truth, because the order of events suggests that Brienne did trust in something about Nimble Dick. After all, Brienne gave him the sword before Podrick Payne had arrived with Oathkeeper. That means that Brienne gave Nimble Dick a sword while she was not yet armed with a sword of her own. What Brienne trusted in was Nimble Dick’s weakness or incompetence with a sword — that he wouldn’t be able to hurt her even if he wanted to and even while she’s swordless. If that’s the right explanation for why Brienne gave Nimble Dick a sword even before she had Oathkeeper in hand, then her size, strength, armor, and dagger may likely have factored into her decision, too.

Still, if Brienne thought Nimble Dick was so weak and useless with a sword, it’s a wonder what she expected him to contribute in a fight. Because of this contradiction, Brienne appears to have little regard for Nimble Dick’s life, because she’s willing to put him in a great amount of danger for a small amount of advantage. What’s more, because a sword is as much for self defense as for attack, she can comfortably deceive herself by telling herself that she’s doing it to protect Nimble Dick.

If the lesson Brienne needs to learn is to overcome her hatred of men, and Brienne is symbolic of us, maybe we need to learn the same lesson to make progress on the Whispers≈TOJ parallel and then the Tower of Joy mystery.

However, you don’t have to take that lesson. You could take a different lesson entirely. You could say it’s not your fault that you didn’t consider Nimble Dick’s perspective because GRRM tricked you by writing the story a certain way. You could even say you disagree with my interpretation, denounce me as a fraud, and swear to never read my work again. That’s all perfectly good and well.

One of the brilliant features of this chapter’s design is that because the shock of Nimble Dick’s recontextualization from creepy betrayer to tragic victim happens to the reader through Brienne, there is never a moment in the audience when readers are especially split between those who trash Nimble Dick and those who defend him. It’s a rare monster who would speak ill of the innocent dead. Because we never had to confront the fact that we were wrong about Nimble Dick just like Brienne was, our wrongness is never exposed to other people, and we can hide it even from ourselves. In this way, the secrets that the situation has to teach us about ASOIAF are reserved for those rare readers who are genuinely seeking how the story got them to be wrong, in order to retrieve a moral of the story.

But independent of me, the fact remains that if you can’t take a lesson from a story, and more specifically the right lesson, you’re unlikely to ever solve its mysteries. And the degree to which an idea can imply accurate predictions about the story, particularly its future such as in answers to unresolved mysteries, is the degree to which the idea is right. That’s all just a fancy way of saying I expect my analysis to mold in obscurity for a long time before the accuracy of the predictions contained within them are measured against the events in The Winds of Winter and A Dream of Spring and found to be majorly correct.

For those who are still reading, we know enough now about the moral of the chapter’s story to return to applying our symbols between the Whispers and the Tower of Joy, and to learn much of what happened in the Tower of Joy fight. That’s up next.

Next: Chapter 9 – The Fight and Fighters II

Beginning: Chapter 0-4 – Introduction


Acclaim

Thank you for these valuable deep dives! I wish we had a devoted ASOIAF subreddit for this kind of stuff, as it can get lost among the memes and griping on here.
It’s a lot to digest, but worth it. —u/4thBG


Created Jul 18, 2024
Updated Aug 24, 2024 – minor changes, additions
Updated Aug 30, 2024 – changes and adds
Updated May 17, 2025 – small changes
Updated Jul 1, 2025 – small add, like galladon

Tower of Joy, A Study in Symbolic Interpretation – Chapter 7

Chapter 7 – He Would Have Killed Me But For Howland Reed

Previous: Chapter 6 – The Fight and Fighters

Beginning: Chapter 0-4 – Introduction

In chapter 6 we ironed out many of the symbolic relationships between the fight at the Whispers and the fight at the Tower of Joy. Most of those symbols describe connections between people. Brienne is symbolizing Ned, Podrick is symbolizing Howland, and so on. There are even more symbols worth writing down. For instance, the audience is largely in agreement that the conspicuous weirwood tree in the Whispers scene is symbolizing a Stark girl, but there is a tension in the audience about which Stark girl the weirwood tree is symbolizing — Arya, Sansa, or Lyanna? This tension is no accident on the part of the author.

Much as I would like to incorporate the weirwood tree into these essays, they are already quite long and I need to resist the urge in order to keep the topic focused enough to hold the reader’s attention.

[[ Indeed, in an ideal world I would incorporate every major mystery of ASOIAF into the analysis so that they can all conclude at the same time on the same spot and in the same way. GRRM has designed ASOIAF’s mysteries in a way that makes that possible. My series Forest Love and Forest Lass is my attempt to do that, if ever I brave that beast again. In this essay series I have already failed to resist that urge and sneakily incorporated mysteries about the House of the Undying Ones and Rhaella Targaryen. If I ever get around to writing the Undying analysis then one day you will be able to reread this one and see where, how, and why I did that. ]]

However else this Whispers fight is symbolizing the Tower of Joy fight, the meat of the symbol appears to be the fighters and the fight itself, because the fight scene is the big set-piece of the chapter that the rest of the chapter builds up to and supports. All of the chapter’s narrative threads culminate in the fight scene. It’s where the tension between Brienne and Dick resolves, it’s where the suspense about who Brienne will find at the end resolves, it’s where the suspense about who’s following Brienne resolves, it’s where the stakes peak, and so on.

I said that we have to be careful not to play fast and loose with words and their meanings, and that when we use a symbol in the definition of another symbol and then misuse it in that way, we break the definition of our own symbol and undermine the accuracy and quality of our interpretation. Now I’ll add its optimistic counterpart: The ability to use symbols in the definitions of other symbols without rendering either symbol faulty for predicting the story has the same compounding effect, but in a supporting way. That is to say, a symbol that predicts the story proves itself useful and any symbols embedded in its definition useful at the same time.

The commonalities described in the Ned≈Brienne symbol are describing commonalities between Ned and Brienne. But because Ned was in the TOJ scene and Brienne was in the Whispers scene, the Ned≈Brienne commonalities are also Whispers≈TOJ commonalities. That means all the commonalities between Ned and Brienne can be added to the Whispers≈TOJ symbol to make it more robust. More than that, the Ned≈Brienne symbol is a component of the Whispers≈TOJ symbol necessarily, and to the exclusion of other symbols. That is to say, Brienne at the Whispers having enough in common with Ned at the Tower of Joy to establish her as a useful symbol of him for understanding the Whispers and/or the Tower of Joy does not necessarily establish her as a useful symbol of him for understanding other scenes in the story that have her or him. It’s possible, but that possibility requires its own proof separate from the Whispers≈TOJ symbol.

The same is true with all the character symbols I’ve defined so far. They are all components of the Whispers≈TOJ symbol, and they make up a body of understanding that can be conceptualized as a Whispers≈TOJ canon. In the same way all the stories within ASOIAF as we understand them make up the canon of ASOIAF, all the symbols in the Whispers≈TOJ symbol as we understand them make up the canon of the Whispers≈TOJ symbol.

In a story’s canon, words, once published are never to be changed, added, or removed, only reinterpreted. Likewise in a parent symbol’s canon, its child symbols, once established, are never to be changed, added or removed, only reinterpreted. For example, we’re allowed to reinterpret the Arthur Dayne symbol as Shagwell instead of Timeon, and we’re allowed to reinterpret the Oswell Whent symbol as Timeon instead of Shagwell, but we’re not allowed to remove Timeon or Shagwell from the Whispers, or to add them to the Tower of Joy, or to remove Arthur or Oswell from the Tower of Joy, or to add them to the Whispers. The underlying recognition is that no kind or amount of reinterpretation will ever reasonably make the characters appear or disappear from a scene, because the literal interpretation is superordinate to the symbolic interpretation. However these characters, events, and images may be analogous to the reader or some lesson for him, the FIRST thing they must be is their literal selves. Timeon is Timeon, Oswell is Oswell, a spear is a spear, and so on. Literal interpretation needs to be the foundation, or starting point, of symbolic interpretation. This point is important for the symbolism of the weirwood tree if ever I get around to explaining that.

Indeed, a full description of the Whispers≈TOJ symbol contains ALL the commonalities in its child symbols, rewritten accordingly. I.E. From “The person who” to “The place where the person who”. Because the Whispers and the Tower of Joy are places not people.

Now you may be wondering, ‘But aren’t you artificially bolstering your symbols by reusing definition components from one symbol to another?’ The answer is no, for the same reason that it isn’t artificially bolstering the truthfulness of the equation 1+2=3 by reusing the numbers 1 and 2 in the equation 1+2-3=0. The answers “3” and “0” are different and therefore warrant their own individual proofs, or trials if you will, regardless that 1 and 2 testify in both cases. Likewise, “Brienne≈Ned” and “Whispers≈TOJ” are different symbols and therefore warrant their own individual proofs, regardless that “kills three men enemies” testifies in both cases. Or to continue the courtroom metaphor, a witness is allowed to testify in multiple cases.

All symbols can be read and applied forward or backward equally validly. That is to say, Ned≈Brienne is the same thing as saying Brienne≈Ned. If I say them in reverse I’m just doing it by accident or to better describe which direction I’m applying the symbol. That’s also to say, Ned at the TOJ can just as reasonably help us understand Brienne at the Whispers as Brienne at the Whispers can help us understand Ned at the TOJ. (This is what I meant when I said we would be jumping back and forth through the symbol to fill out the information we don’t know. Like a game of literary sudoku, after you work out information in one place, you can work out information in another place.) That doesn’t mean it will, but it can. GRRM’s mysteries in particular often require the reader to travel through the symbol in both directions multiple times in order to extract insights from both applications and add them all together. I gather that GRRM relies upon readers to succeed at making the first, outward journey through the symbol, and to neglect to make the second, return trip back to the scene of origin.

Perhaps the most challenging thing we need to do in symbolic interpretation is to hold the fully described Whispers≈TOJ symbol in our minds, and, without losing or jostling the details, to overlay it onto one of those scenes or the other, in order to see where they don’t match, where they may or may not match, and where they do match. We’re looking for anything in the comparison that is surprising, awkward, or that stands out in any way, especially as compared to the audience’s popular opinions and common arguments about the Tower of Joy.

In a song, the “songness” resides not in the notes but in the space between the notes. You can play a song anywhere on the instrument and it will sound “off” but recognizable as the same song, because the space between the notes stayed the same. Likewise in a set of symbols, we want to maintain the relationships between the symbols after we’ve defined them.

For instance, some of the relationships between the Ned symbol and the Howland symbol in both scenes are that they’re friends, they’re together at the fight, they’re on the same side of the fight, and the Howland symbol is worse at direct combat than the Ned symbol is. (“Howland is worse than Ned” matches that “Pod is worse than Brienne.”)

Notice that some of these relationships are not in the definition of the Ned≈Brienne symbol or the Pod≈Howland symbol. “Friends” is not there. “Worse or better at direct combat” is not there. Why? Because I simply didn’t think of them at the time. This is precisely why we aim to preserve the relationship between the symbols more-so than the symbols.

We want to preserve the symbols, too, but like memorizing the notes of a new song, memorizing the definition of the symbols is the easy part, and if we forget them we can always check the paper. The more challenging part is preserving “Friends” and “Worse or better at direct combat” before we noticed that those commonalities exist. Because the most important commonality could very well be one that we missed. This is not uncommonly the case in ASOIAF, because GRRM is very good at identifying what his readers are likely to overlook if he writes the story in a certain way, and he knows that those are the best places to hide his clues. By preserving as much of the relationship between the symbols as we can, we leave ourselves the chance later to spot commonalities that we missed. Let’s update our Podrick≈Howland symbol to include those newfound commonalities and build up that symbol.

Podrick Payne ≈ Howland Reed

Podrick Payne and Howland Reed are both:

  • ‘A physically unimposing young man at the fight on the Ned symbol’s side, who is friends with the Ned symbol, and who is worse at direct combat than the Ned symbol, and who does something that prevents the Ned symbol from being killed.’

To give you a counter-example, a relationship between Howland and Ned that is not preserved in the Whispers scene is that they met at Harrenhal. Podrick and Brienne did not meet at Harrenhal. What that means for our Tower of Joy investigation is that the fact that Howland and Ned met at Harrenhal probably doesn’t effect the ability of the Whispers≈TOJ parallel to convey whatever it has to teach us about either the Whispers or the Tower of Joy. In other words, because the detail is not relevant in one scene and not preserved in the other scene, that’s enough reason to assume it does not matter, at least for this investigation.

I should also curb my expectations about how significant the message of this parallel is likely to be. The Whispers is but one of half a dozen or more scenes paralleling the Tower of Joy drama to a degree of certainty between ninety-nine and a hundred percent. If we only come away from the Whispers≈TOJ parallel with one insight that gives us a minor course correction in our investigation of the Tower of Joy, then the Whispers parallel did its job. The author is in no hurry to dump the biggest revelations at the center of his magnum opus into our laps all in one parallel. We’ll likely have to gather up the meager fruits from several parallels and put them together before we break significant new ground.

Sounds like a lot of work? It is. That’s why these mysteries are decades old and despite ASOIAF becoming the biggest pop literature hit in the world most readers have given up on the mysteries and turned to chastising GRRM for not publishing the answers. But they say if you do what you love you’ll never work a day in your life. If you love symbolic interpretation you’re just the right person to take up this toolkit and apply it to whatever ASOIAF mystery gnaws at you.

If you’re new to symbolic interpretation and it seems daunting, just remember that essentially symbolism is nothing more than the property of substitution. When we say A is symbolic of B we’re merely saying A can be substituted for B and B can be substituted for A. Not universally, but in some context. At minimum, that context is always the sentence, paragraph, scene, scenes, or chapter from which the commonalities that define the symbol were found. The contiguous range of that context is never more than the chapter. Parts outside of the chapter can be added to the symbol’s context remotely through a recurring element such as a phrase, thing, image, or idea. If a phrase, thing, image or idea happens to be the title of the book or series, like “feast for crows” or “ice and fire”, then the permissible context for the symbol is the whole book and the whole series, respectively.

While I find it helpful to curb my expectations during an investigation so that I don’t become disheartened and throw in the towel, there’s no need for you to curb your expectations about the things you’re going to learn about the Tower of Joy in this essay series. The revelations are very satisfying in their drama and monumental in their implications. Since this series is a study in symbolic interpretation, I’m going to take my sweet time walking you through it and explaining the process in detail every step of the way. Before the end of it I will directly tell you the satisfying drama. However, with the monumental implications I will only help you figure them out yourself, albeit in as big a way I can without spelling out the answers. walk you through the answers. If that sounds agreeable, let’s ride on!

Symbol Test – Timeon≈Arthur, Podrick≈Howland, Brienne≈Ned

Now let’s run that test I mentioned earlier, and see how well a few of our symbols predict the story. The test was the question ‘Who would have killed Brienne if Pod hadn’t thrown one or both of those stones?’ If it was the Arthur symbol, that would match with Ned’s line in Bran’s memory that says:

“They called [Arthur Dayne] the Sword of the Morning, and he would have killed me but for Howland Reed.” (ACOK Bran III)

There are four possibilities for the answer to that question: Pyg, Shagwell, Timeon, and nobody. If the answer turns out to be the character I put forward as the symbolic Arthur Dayne — Timeon — then the test proves the predictive power of the symbol (particularly the parts of its definition that are at play in the test) to a standard of 1/4, increasing certainty of the symbol by 75%, an increase to be compounded with any other tests we do for it. That would be a good increase for so simple a test. Now let’s reread the scene and find out who it was that would have killed Brienne if not for Podrick Payne. (I don’t remember, so we will find out together, and I’ll accept whatever result the story returns.)

“Your turn,” she told Timeon, as the Dornishman pulled out a second spear, shorter and thicker than the first. “Throw it.”

“So you can dance away and charge me? I’d end up dead as Pyg. No. Get her, Shags.”

“You get her,” Shagwell said. “Did you see what she did to Pyg? She’s mad with moon blood.” The fool was behind her, Timeon in front. No matter how she turned, one was at her back.

“Get her,” urged Timeon, “and you can fuck her corpse.”

“Oh, you do love me.” The morningstar was whirling. Choose one, Brienne told herself. Choose one and kill him quickly. Then a stone came out of nowhere, and hit Shagwell in the head. Brienne did not hesitate. She flew at Timeon.

He was better than Pyg, but he had only a short throwing spear, and she had a Valyrian steel blade. Oathkeeper was alive in her hands. She had never been so quick. The blade became a grey blur. He wounded her in the shoulder as she came at him, but she slashed off his ear and half his cheek, hacked the head off his spear, and put a foot of rippled steel into his belly through the links of the chain mail byrnie he was wearing.

Timeon was still trying to fight as she pulled her blade from him, its fullers running red with blood. He clawed at his belt and came up with a dagger, so Brienne cut his hand off. That one was for Jaime. “Mother have mercy,” the Dornishman gasped, the blood bubbling from his mouth and spurting from his wrist. “Finish it. Send me back to Dorne, you bloody bitch.”

She did.

Shagwell was on his knees when she turned, looking dazed as he fumbled for the morningstar. As he staggered to his feet, another stone slammed him in the ear. Podrick had climbed the fallen wall and was standing amongst the ivy glowering, a fresh rock in his hand. “I told you I could fight!” he shouted down.

After Brienne kills Pyg, there are two men remaining. No matter which way she turns, one man is at her back. Brienne has to choose which one to attack first, but no matter who she chooses in this scenario she will open herself to attack from the other one. Podrick’s stone hits Shagwell in the head (ouch), knocks him to his knees and dazes him for the duration of her fight with Timeon. With Shagwell dazed, Brienne attacks Timeon.

It would be easy to criticize Brienne for not attacking Shagwell before Timeon, because a dazed opponent is a free kill. But if she had done that she would have exposed her back to attack from Timeon, who was not dazed. So attacking Timeon was the right choice.

At first glance, the stone saved Brienne from Shagwell. So, we could fairly say Shagwell is the one who would have killed Brienne from the back if Podrick had not thrown the stone. But since we don’t know who Brienne would have attacked first if the stone hadn’t been thrown, we don’t know who Brienne’s back would have been exposed to. It can just as fairly be said that the stone saved Brienne from Timeon, who would have killed her from the back if she chose to fight Shagwell first.

The test has returned two equally viable answers. Since Timeon is one of the two possible answers out of the four total, this test only increases our certainty of the Arthur≈Timeon symbol by 50%. It was good enough to exclude Pyg and nobody, but not good enough to narrow Shagwell and Timeon down to Timeon. If I have the Arthur Dayne symbol wrongly placed on Timeon, this result may indicate that it should be on Shagwell.

Since Arthur and Timeon still have Dornish in common, and since Dorne is one kingdom out of seven that GRRM could have made Timeon’s homeland (14%), I’m going to proceed with Timeon as the symbolic Athur Dayne. A 50% result from this test multiplied by 14% from “Dornish” results in a 7% probability that these features of Timeon match those of Arthur Dayne by mere coincidence. That’s very improbable. Put differently, there’s a 93% probability that these features of Timeon match those of Arthur Dayne on purpose. (Disclaimer: I’m probably messing up some of the math in these essays because I haven’t studied statistics, but the gist should be the same and I’ll send a statistician to fix my work later.)

If the Arthur≈Timeon symbol becomes dysfunctional or if I get stuck in my investigation, I can always return to this spot and reconsider Shagwell. I call this “marking the forks in the road.” Sometimes we have to back up to a fork in the road of possibilities and take a different viable path, so it’s worth making a mental note of them.

[[ Another thing I can share about ASOIAF symbolism that will save you some headache — and this may be specific to ASOIAF and/or GRRM — is that there will never be a symbol of a symbol. For example, in this chapter Brienne is symbolic of Ned. But this chapter is also laden with clues that Brienne and Duncan the Tall have things in common (thick as a castle wall), and those commonalities could establish that Brienne is symbolic of Dunk. Likewise, Dunk is symbolic of Ned, because the Dunk & Egg stories are laden with clues about Dunk’s commonalities to Ned. Since ASOIAF establishes both Brienne and Ned as symbols of Dunk, it can be tempting to add those commonalities to your Brienne≈Ned symbol to bolster it. But you can’t do that. Not in this series, anyway. Brienne≈Dunk and Ned≈Dunk have to be treated like separate symbols. If you try to say Brienne≈Dunk≈Ned therefore Brienne≈Ned, you’ll send yourself on wild goose chases. Brienne≈Ned needs to be established without using their commonalities to Dunk. At least in this Whispers≈TOJ symbol, it can be.

That said, a Brienne≈Dunk symbol may be able to teach us things about this chapter or Dunk & Egg or both. I won’t go into that in this series, but if I tackle A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms this Brienne chapter may come up.

Another thing I can share about symbolic interpretation is that a symbol’s purview does not extend beyond its parent symbol. If I want to establish Brienne≈Ned in another scene besides the Whispers or TOJ, I have to start from zero commonalities again and use only the commonalities provided in those other two scenes. Likewise, whatever message a symbol is sending to the reader, the message can not and will not extend beyond its parent symbol. I.E. The Brienne≈Ned symbol we established between the Whispers scene and the TOJ scene will only ever tell us things about the Whispers scene and the TOJ scene. If it seems like it is telling us about some other scene or situation besides those two, you can be certain you’re chasing geese (wasting your time).

On the other hand, the purview of things you learn about the Whispers scene or the TOJ scene (from the Brienne≈Ned symbol or any other way) CAN extend beyond the Whispers and TOJ scenes. For a symbolic interpreter, that kind of discovery is the holy grail. A child symbol teaches you something about a parent symbol that teaches you the answer to a question you were actually asking from the beginning — a top level question. The first time that happens, you have your first complete model of how the story’s symbolic revelations work from bottom to top. The things you can learn from that model will generalize to the rest of the story’s mysteries, setting in motion a gradually snowballing effect of mystery solving by improving your understanding of the story’s philosophy and your educated guesses. ]]

Conclusion

To conclude this chapter, in symbolic interpretation we’re looking for awkwardness that emerges in a comparison between the two things in the symbol. In the Whispers≈TOJ symbol, its child symbols proved themselves to be accurately predictive of the story, but the test returned some awkwardness at the same time. The Arthur Dayne symbol became stronger for Timeon, increasing our certainty that Timeon is symbolic of Arthur Dayne, but not in every way we expected.

I expected that when I added Ned’s comment about Arthur Dayne as criteria for the Whispers≈TOJ symbol, our hypothesized Arthur Dayne symbol (Timeon) would clearly be the same person who “would have killed [Brienne] but for [Podrick Payne].” But Timeon is not so clearly the person who would have killed Brienne but for Podrick Payne. Timeon and Shagwell scored equally in that regard. The answer to the question of who would have killed Brienne but for Podrick Payne seems to depend on who Brienne chose or would have chosen to attack first if Podrick had not thrown the stone.

Awkwardness is what we’re looking for in symbolic interpretation, and this awkwardness in the Arthur Dayne symbol with Timeon and Shagwell marks precisely where we should dive in deep to see what we can learn. As seems to have become customary in this essay series, I’ll do that two or three essay chapters later. It’s time I deliver an analysis I promised at the end of chapter 5 about the drama between Brienne and Nimble Dick Crabb.

We’ve advanced our symbols to the point that we’re ready to do the fun part of symbolic analysis — the part where we begin exporting details from one situation and importing them to the other to learn the things we want to learn. But before we do that I need to get the thematic analysis up to the same progress level. So let’s spend the next chapter of the essay talking about the Whispers chapter in the more familiar styles of drama and theme.

If the chapter AFFC 20 Brienne IV has a theme, a lesson or a message, what is it? And how does that relate to our Tower of Joy investigation? Those are the questions we’ll address next.

Next: Chapter 8 – Nimble Dick Crabb


Created Jul 9, 2024
Updated Aug 24, 2024 – minor changes, add brackets
Updated Nov 23, 2024 – walk you through the answers
Updated May 17, 2025 – small changes

Tower of Joy, A Study in Symbolic Interpretation – Chapter 6

Chapter 6 – The Fight and Fighters

Timeon

Previous: Chapter 5 – Ser Galladon of Morne

Beginning: Chapter 0-4 – Introduction

As Kingmonkey described in his essay, there are a variety of ways the Whispers fight is paralleling or alluding to the Tower of Joy fight. Now let’s write down some of those symbols.

I normally do this part in my head because I’m lazy, but the process of writing down the commonalities that unify the symbols is critical in symbolic interpretation because the literal definitions of the words you use are the standards by which the symbol can be proven false. By neglecting to write out the commonalities that unify the two things in the symbol, the interpreter runs the risk of deceiving himself that the commonalities actually exist. If you can describe the commonalities in specific, carefully chosen words and those words can hold true throughout the entire interpretation, you (and your readers) can be confident that you’re suiting your interpretation to the definition rather than suiting the definition to your interpretation.

Ned ≈ Brienne

I’ve already established that Brienne is symbolic of Ned. I improvised my definition of that symbol on the fly, but I think I can do better, so let me chisel that out now. Ned and Brienne are both:

  • ‘A person who journeys to an isolated building to retrieve a Stark girl where he/she finds three men enemies, fights them, and kills them.’

There are more commonalities between Brienne and Ned in these scenes that I could add to this definition to make the symbol more robust, like the fact that neither one of them come away from the scene with a living Stark girl, they both own a magic sword, and they’re both especially concerned with being honorable. Additionally, both isolated buildings are in nature as opposed to a town or city. But this definition contains enough commonalities to exclude every other character and situation in the story except Ned at the Tower of Joy and Brienne at the Whispers.

For instance, the “fights them and kills them” part excludes another scene that seems to mirror the Tower of Joy, the scene where Ned is walking through the Red Keep to visit Robert at his death bed and along the way he sees three kingsguard that remind him of the Tower of Joy. Because, of course, Ned didn’t fight or kill those three men.

So, contrary to criticisms that symbolic interpretation can be massaged into any interpretation the interpreter wants, which is true, the interpreter can also constrain his interpretation to tight, falsifiable standards. The tighter the standards, the tighter the symbols. The tighter the symbols, the surer the insights. A common mistake amateur symbolic interpreters make is they leave the symbols loosely described. Usually they are doing it subconsciously because they have some awareness that later on they will want to use different commonalities to describe them, and that’s harder to do when you describe them in strict terms, so they will avoid doing that early on. But the strictness of the terms is an experienced and honest symbolic interpreter’s best friend, because the strictness determines the exclusivity. The more of the story that is excluded from a symbol’s description, the more certainly the part of the story that is not excluded is being referenced by the author on purpose.

So it’s worth asking yourself “What is the most exclusionary part in my description of the symbol?”

If I had to guess, I think the most exclusionary parts of the symbol I described are probably “Stark” and “three”. This is a big story, so it doesn’t seem impossible that there is another place in the story where a person journeys to an isolated building to retrieve a girl. But having it be a Stark girl excludes girls from all other families. Since there are so many other families in the story, that reduces the probability of that scene’s existence to near zero.

As if that wasn’t enough… Although it seems incredibly unlikely that there is another place in the story where a person journeys to an isolated building to retrieve a Stark girl, fights men and kills them, it seems astronomically unlikely that there is another place in the story where a person journeys to an isolated building to retrieve a Stark girl, fights three men and kills them. Three is a specific number out of an infinitude of numbers. Even if we suppose that the author would never have used a number of people greater than twenty, the probability that it’s a coincidence that the number he chose in the Whispers fight is the same as the number he chose in the Tower of Joy fight is one out of twenty, or five percent.

Compounded with the exclusiveness that the word Stark adds, we’ve successfully proven to an extreme standard that the probability that the Whispers scene mirrors the Tower of Joy scene by accident or coincidence is so small as to be indistinguishable from zero, and we only needed to use two of the twenty-four words from the symbol’s description to do the proof. With this description we’re well grounded in the text to call these two scenes parallels, or symbolic of one another, and to proceed with symbolic interpretation.

It’s worth noting that a proof of a symbol only retains its strength inasmuch as the interpreter strictly adheres to the description’s exact words and their exact meanings. Words often have multiple meanings, so there is wiggle room in the interpretation that way. But if, for instance, I begin saying with no textual justification that Jeyne Poole is a Stark girl because that’s the identity Boltons forced upon her, I contradict my own proof and compromise my interpretation, because obviously Jeyne Poole is not literally a Stark and she is not referenced in these scenes. Readers can sense when an interpreter is doing this and it’s much of what sours them on symbolic interpretation. If we want our symbolic interpretations to be taken seriously, we have to knock that off. (This is why I urge people to literally write out the descriptions of their symbols and update it as they go. It prevents us from deceiving others by preventing us from deceiving ourselves.)

Podrick Payne ≈ Howland Reed

Podrick Payne and Howland Reed are both:

  • ‘A physically unimposing young man at the fight on the Ned symbol’s side who does something that prevents the Ned symbol from being killed.’

Yes, a definition of a symbol can have another symbol in it. Just remember that doing this multiplies any injuries caused to the definition by you playing fast and loose with the words and their meanings. That is, if you use the Ned symbol in your definition of the Howland symbol and then you break the Ned symbol, you broke the Howland symbol, too.

We might be able to add ‘by the Arthur Dayne symbol’ to the end of this definition. We’ll have to return to this after we determine who in the Whispers fight, if anybody, is symbolizing Arthur Dayne [Timeon], and if he is the same person who would have killed Brienne if Podrick hadn’t thrown one or both of those stones. (This will be a great test of the predictive power of our symbols. If the symbols we invented here can predict this detail of the story that we don’t remember [Who would have killed Brienne?] then we have good grounding to assume the symbols can predict other parts of the story, even parts that haven’t been published yet.)

The Whispers ≈ The Tower of Joy

The Whispers and the Tower of Joy are both:

  • ‘An isolated building in nature where the Ned symbol arrives with a group of men to retrieve a Stark girl, finds three men enemies there, fights them and kills them.’

This symbol is the parent of all the others we’re describing. All of the other symbols can fairly be added to the description of this one to bolster it. In truth, the full description of the Whispers≈TOJ symbol contains all of its child symbols and their full descriptions. But we’ll use this short version to keep it simple.

Pyg ≈ Gerold Hightower

Pyg and Gerold Hightower are both:

  • ‘A man who fights in a group of three men at the Tower of Joy symbol and is killed by the Ned symbol and whose nickname is a farm animal.’

Pyg’s nickname is a bastardization of “pig”, and Gerold’s nickname is “The White Bull.” Both pig and bull are four-legged farm animals who are farmed primarily for meat, but to keep the definition from becoming cumbersome let’s leave off the other commonalities and just use “farm animal.” As if to preserve in the parallel the difference in quality between these two men, bulls are regarded highly and pigs lowly. So, too, goes the comparison between Gerold and Pyg.

Timeon ≈ Arthur Dayne

Timeon and Arthur Dayne are both:

  • ‘A man who fights in a group of three men at the Tower of Joy symbol and is killed by the Ned symbol, and who is Dornish.

Attention is drawn in the scene to Timeon’s Dornish heritage through his accent, his weapon, and his words. He speaks with a “dornish drawl”, his weapon is a spear which is both the dornishman’s favored weapon and the symbol of Dorne’s principal house House Martell, he’s compared to a snake in Brienne’s thoughts when he makes his entrance from the well and snakes are a characteristically dornish animal, and his dying words are “Finish it. Send me back to Dorne, you bloody bitch.”

Likewise, Arthur Dayne is the only dornishman in the trio at the Tower of Joy.

Shagwell ≈ Oswell Whent

Shagwell and Oswell Whent are both:

  • ‘A man who fights in a group of three men at the Tower of Joy symbol and is killed by the Ned symbol, and whose name ends with “-well”, and who has a reputation for dark humor.’

Jaime’s memory of Oswell tells us that he had “black humor.”

They were all in their graves now, the Sword of the Morning and the Smiling Knight, the White Bull and Prince Lewyn, Ser Oswell Whent with his black humor, earnest Jon Darry, Simon Toyne and his Kingswood Brotherhood, bluff old Sumner Crakehall. [ASoS Jaime VIII]

Attention is drawn to Shagwell’s black humor in virtually every sentence he speaks.

“I think I’m going to fuck you up the nose, wench,” Shagwell announced. “Won’t that be amusing?”

shagwell 6 cut

While it’s true that all three of these men engage in this kind of black humor, Shagwell is the only one who is a literal fool, dressed in motly, and who explicitly lays claim to his humor and foolness. Additionally, Shagwell being a fool and therefore associated with humor is established repeatedly in the two chapters where Brienne and the gang approach the Whispers, because their guide Nimble Dick promised to lead her to a fool after Brienne said she was looking for a fool with a girl.

Nimble Dick Crabb ≈ Martyn Cassell + Theo Wull + Ethan Glover + Mark Ryswell + Lord Dustin

At the risk of giving away some of the surprise of the essay’s eighth chapter, here’s the Nimble Dick Crabb symbol.

Nimble Dick Crabb and this group of men are both:

  • ‘Companions to the Ned symbol and Howland symbol who fight with them at the Tower of Joy symbol against three men enemies there [the Three Kingsguard symbol], who die in the fight because the Ned symbol should not have included them in the fight, and who were buried there.’

Pyg + Timeon + Shagwell ≈ The Three Kingsguard: Gerold, Arthur, Oswell

At the risk of being redundant, here’s the Kingsguard symbol. It might be useful to have these characters defined at the group level.

The groups Pyg + Timeon + Shagwell and Gerold + Arthur + Oswell are both:

  • ‘A group of three men enemies who the Ned symbol finds at the Tower of Joy symbol, who fight the Ned symbol and its group, and who are killed by them.’

Now that we’re certain from all of these commonalities that the Whispers fight is symbolizing the Tower of Joy fight, we’re probably going to feel overwhelmed by the number of commonalities and unsure about which commonality contains an insight we need about the Tower of Joy. Where should we aim our attention?

As a general rule, the commonality that contains the greatest insight or set of insights we need will be the commonality that is the biggest and most-encompassing. Here, the biggest commonality between the Whispers fight and the Tower of Joy fight is “fight.” The nitty-gritties of the moment-to-moment combat at the Whispers fight are shown to us in detail, which contrasts starkly with how little we know about the details of the combat at the Tower of Joy fight. So, if the Whispers scene is showing us truths about the Tower of Joy scene, most of what it’s showing us will probably be found in the combat-related things — the fight scene’s “fight-ness”. Some combat-related things are the weapons, the armor, the fighters, the attacks, the strategies, the positions of the fighters, who fought who, critical decisions, clutch saves, deciding factors, who died, who lived, who was injured, the role of environmental details like terrain and climate, and so on.

At this stage, we’re ready to put our symbols to the test, to see how well they can predict facts about the story that we didn’t notice or don’t remember. You don’t have to test your symbols, but every attempt to apply them is essentially a test of them, so we may as well call our first attempt to apply them a test. Let’s do that in the next essay chapter.

Next: Chapter 7 – He Would Have Killed Me But For Howland Reed

Beginning: Chapter 0-4 – Introduction


Created Jun 28, 2024
Updated Jul 9, 2024 – Minor change, Ending change
Updated May 17, 2025 – small fix

Tower of Joy, A Study in Symbolic Interpretation – Chapter 5

Chapter 5 – Ser Galladon of Morne

galladon banner

Previous: Tower of Joy, A Study in Symbolic Interpretation – Chapter 0-4

With love and respect, I must say there are many ASOIAF theorists, analysts and influencers who frankly do not know what they’re doing when they attempt symbolic interpretation. Many of them are completely confident in their great aptitude for symbolic interpretation, and have large, cultish audiences of their own who they teach their habits to. I hesitate even to call them methods. In such an environment, it can be hard to tell apart the sense from the nonsense, the researchers from the peddlers, and the theory from the analysis. Or to borrow a sentiment from Varys, Melisandre, and Littlefinger, it can be hard to tell apart who is seeing what’s really there from who is merely seeing what they want or expect to see.

I bring up Varys, Melisandre and Littlefinger to show that this topic of symbolic aptitude is a core theme at work in ASOIAF. In this essay chapter I will show a demonstration of that theme at work in this Brienne chapter. Rest assured that this analysis is far from tangential to the rest of the essay series. It is essential to it.

My thesis for this demonstration is that well done symbolic interpretation is uniquely marked by its explanatory power over not just the things in the story but also the story’s effect on its audience. That is why self-awareness is needed for symbolic interpretation. I need to observe my reaction to the story even while I’m having it, or at least to take a sober accounting of myself afterwards.

In this chapter, Brienne and Dick exchange stories about their hometown heroes. Dick tells about Ser Clarence Crabb, and then Brienne tells about Ser Galladon of Morne The Perfect Knight.

Dick still refused to believe that Brienne had never heard of Ser Clarence Crabb and his exploits.

“Why would I lie?” she asked him. “Every place has its local heroes. Where I come from, the singers sing of Ser Galladon of Morne, the Perfect Knight.”

“Ser Gallawho of What?” He snorted. “Never heard o’ him. Why was he so bloody perfect?”

“Ser Galladon was a champion of such valor that the Maiden herself lost her heart to him. She gave him an enchanted sword as a token of her love. The Just Maid, it was called. No common sword could check her, nor any shield withstand her kiss. Ser Galladon bore the Just Maid proudly, but only thrice did he unsheathe her. He would not use the Maid against a mortal man, for she was so potent as to make any fight unfair.”

Crabb thought that was hilarious. “The Perfect Knight? The Perfect Fool, he sounds like. What’s the point o’ having some magic sword if you don’t bloody well use it?”

“Honor,” she said. “The point is honor.”

That only made him laugh the louder. “Ser Clarence Crabb would have wiped his hairy arse with your Perfect Knight, m’lady. If they’d ever have met, there’d be one more bloody head sitting on the shelf at the Whispers, you ask me. ‘I should have used the magic sword,’ it’d be saying to all the other heads. ‘I should have used the bloody sword.’”

Brienne could not help but smile. “Perhaps,” she allowed, “but Ser Galladon was no fool. Against a foe eight feet tall mounted on an aurochs, he might well have unsheathed the Just Maid. He used her once to slay a dragon, they say.”

Nimble Dick was unimpressed. “Crackbones fought a dragon too, but he didn’t need no magic sword. He just tied its neck in a knot, so every time it breathed fire it roasted its own arse.”

Part of what makes Galladon a hero is that he’s honorable, and one of the ways he’s honorable is that even though he has a magic sword, he hardly uses it. According to the tale, he never uses it against a mortal man because it would make the fight unfair.

Who knows how much of the Galladon story really happened? But that doesn’t matter because the word “story” can but doesn’t need to mean “fiction.” Story is the root word of history, and we all understand that history is non-fiction even though it tells a story, and even though it tells a story like a story — with narrative structure, dramatic emphasis, omitting unworthy details while retaining ones deemed important, regardless that the events as lived contained no such favoritism for storytelling. A historical person’s moment-to-moment reality was mostly filler like ours is. Story and history alike boil events down to their gist. Therein lies the essence of the meaning of the word story: gist. It’s the actionable takeaway for the reader, also referred to as theme, symbol, lesson, teaching, didacticism, and moral of the story.ser galladon render

The actionable takeaway in Ser Galladon’s story is approximately ‘Great power is bestowed upon those who can bear great responsibility.’ Galladon’s valor earned him the magic sword, yet his honor prevents him from using it except when absolutely necessary. Nimble Dick points out the paradox:

“What’s the point o’ having some magic sword if you don’t bloody well use it?”

Brienne responds that the point is honor. Like power and responsibility, honor is a lofty word that can mean too many things to mean anything, but one thing we’re shown that it surely means in this Galladon story is fairness, particularly fairness in fights:

He would not use the Maid against a mortal man, for she was so potent as to make any fight unfair.”

So fairness in fights is the definition of honor we should use for interpreting this situation.

Dick responds with ridicule by describing a scenario where Galladon’s restraint in a hypothetical fight against Dick’s hero Ser Clarence Crabb has cost him his life:

That only made him laugh the louder. “Ser Clarence Crabb would have wiped his hairy arse with your Perfect Knight, m’lady. If they’d ever have met, there’d be one more bloody head sitting on the shelf at the Whispers, you ask me. ‘I should have used the magic sword,’ it’d be saying to all the other heads. ‘I should have used the bloody sword.’”

This shows us that Brienne and Dick extracted two different actionable takeaways, or lessons, from the very same story. It’s as if ASOIAF is echoing critics who say that fans who do symbolic interpretation see whatever they want to see. This chapter is addressing that complaint, if we can take the lesson. Let’s keep going and see if or how this magic sword drama resolves for these characters.

Brienne could not help but smile. “Perhaps,” she allowed, “but Ser Galladon was no fool. Against a foe eight feet tall mounted on an aurochs, he might well have unsheathed the Just Maid. He used her once to slay a dragon, they say.”

Brienne’s response maintains Dick’s hypothetical scenario, because we learned from Dick in the previous Brienne chapter that Clarence Crabb was eight feet tall and rode an aurochs. So Brienne didn’t invent this foe, it’s a description of Clarence Crabb specifically.

Her point is that Galladon would easily recognize that Clarence is a powerful enough foe that the magic sword will be needed. She adds that Galladon used the magic sword to slay a dragon, who, while mortal, is not a man, so Brienne has not contradicted her previous claim that Galladon did not use the magic sword against mortal men. Still, Ser Clarence is a mortal man, and if Ser Galladon had indeed used his magic sword against Clarence as Brienne suggests, he would have made himself less honorable of a hero in doing so.

So Brienne has successfully rebutted Dick’s point, but at the cost of some of her hero’s honor. This cost might imply that Galladon’s honorable way was less perfect than his Perfect Knight nickname suggests. An attentive Brienne or reader can be left wondering ‘What’s the matter with honor, then?’

ASOIAF’s subtext in this back and forth between Brienne and Dick seems to be ‘There’s something wrong with honor.’, but for now, it leaves the question to us about what that thing is. This is quite a different takeaway than either Brienne’s or Dick’s, but in this form it is not actionable for us, so we’re awaiting its resolution.

Brienne spots a mysterious man (Hyle Hunt) following the group at a great distance, and then she remembers this story about the time her master-at-arms tried to teach her a lesson.

They had not seen any sign of the man since leaving Lord Brune’s castle, but that did not mean he had given up the hunt.

It may be that I will need to kill him, she told herself one night as she paced about the camp. The notion made her queasy. Her old master-at-arms had always questioned whether she was hard enough for battle. “You have a man’s strength in your arms,” Ser Goodwin had said to her, more than once, “but your heart is as soft as any maid’s. It is one thing to train in the yard with a blunted sword in hand, and another to drive a foot of sharpened steel into a man’s gut and see the light go out of his eyes.” To toughen her, Ser Goodwin used to send her to her father’s butcher to slaughter lambs and suckling pigs. The piglets squealed and the lambs screamed like frightened children. By the time the butchering was done Brienne had been blind with tears, her clothes so bloody that she had given them to her maid to burn. But Ser Goodwin still had doubts. “A piglet is a piglet. It is different with a man. When I was a squire young as you, I had a friend who was strong and quick and agile, a champion in the yard. We all knew that one day he would be a splendid knight. Then war came to the Stepstones. I saw my friend drive his foeman to his knees and knock the axe from his hand, but when he might have finished he held back for half a heartbeat. In battle half a heartbeat is a lifetime. The man slipped out his dirk and found a chink in my friend’s armor. His strength, his speed, his valor, all his hard-won skill … it was worth less than a mummer’s fart, because he flinched from killing. Remember that, girl.”

I will, she promised his shade, there in the piney wood. She sat down on a rock, took out her sword, and began to hone its edge. I will remember, and I pray I will not flinch.

This memory of Ser Goodwin’s lesson echoes much of the lesson Nimble Dick extracted from Brienne’s story about Galladon — don’t hold back when it counts. This gives Brienne a second opinion about the Galladon interpretation, making the tally two against one, and perhaps influencing her decision soon after.

She drew her sword. Even in mail and boiled leather, she felt naked.

“Go on, m’lady,” urged Nimble Dick, behind her. “What are you waiting for? Old Crabb’s been dead a thousand years.”

What was she waiting for? Brienne told herself that she was being foolish. The sound was just the sea, echoing endlessly through the caverns beneath the castle, rising and falling with each wave. It did sound like whispering, though, and for a moment she could almost see the heads, sitting on their shelves and muttering to one another. “I should have used the sword” one of them was saying. “I should have used the magic sword.

“Podrick,” said Brienne. “There’s a sword and scabbard wrapped up in my bedroll. Bring them here to me.”

“Yes, ser. My lady. I will.” The boy went running off.

Before entering the Whispers, Brienne has a bad feeling and she remembers Dick’s ridicule about Galladon not using the magic sword. At the last moment, she sends Pod to get her own magic sword, Oathkeeper, and she gives her regular sword to Dick, finally trusting him and in a big way, even if out of necessity.

Apparently, Brienne saw how Galladon relates to and can symbolize her and her present situation, both of them being an honorable knight or knight-like warrior with a magic sword that they restrain themselves from using. She recognized that this is a moment when the magic sword may really count for something, and I can see from the way the fight plays out that it does. Oathkeeper moves faster and cuts deeper than her normal sword would have. In a fight of one against three, every second counts.

[Pyg] jerked his broken blade up to protect his face, but as he went high she went low. Oathkeeper bit through leather, wool, skin, and muscle, into the sellsword’s thigh.

(…)

I did not flinch, she thought, as blood ran red down her cheek. Did you see, Ser Goodwin? She hardly felt the cut.

(…)

Oathkeeper was alive in her hands. She had never been so quick. The blade became a grey blur. [Timeon] wounded her in the shoulder as she came at him, but she slashed off his ear and half his cheek, hacked the head off his spear, and put a foot of rippled steel into his belly through the links of the chain mail byrnie he was wearing.

In the end, Brienne achieved character progression by learning from a story, and she learned from a story by noticing how it’s implicitly referring to her and her situation through commonalities like “Me and Galladon are knight-like”, “Me and Galladon have a magic sword”, “Me and Galladon are honorable”, “Me and Galladon are against a dangerous foe.”

Stories are for the living to take lessons from them or not and apply them in their lives or not. The subject of any story is always ultimately the person reading it. The characters whether fictional or historical will never benefit from the story, because they aren’t real or they aren’t alive. The story is there to benefit the person who’s reading it, and that’s why somebody went to the trouble to write it. As the great literary analyst Joseph Campbell put it, if you never make the connection to yourself, you have misread the story.

A great amount of text in this chapter is symbolizing and commentating on a main point of discussion its audience is having about it. The centerpiece of the chapter’s drama is the fight, and the outcome of the fight is drastically changed by Brienne being able to notice the commonalities between her situation and the situation of the character in the story, to take a lesson from the story, and to negotiate her interpretation of that story with the interpretations of people who she dislikes and disagrees with. It probably goes without saying but I feel the need to point it out — this chapter was published before discussions about it happened. It was published before anybody had a chance to complain that symbolic interpretation is nonsense because the interpreter is just seeing what he wants to see. Yet somehow this chapter is still symbolizing that debate. That’s incredible.

It suggests that the author knew that this chapter, as written, would evoke a discussion about symbolism in his audience. He likely knew that some readers would say “I think this scene is symbolic of the Tower of Joy and telling us something about it.” He likely knew that other readers would respond with “I think you’re just seeing what you want to see.” And he provisioned the first group with a profound defense by hinging the chapter’s main drama upon Brienne’s engagement with a story, her noticing how the story symbolizes her through commonalities, and making an adjustment in her situation to improve her outcome.

Brienne seeing the commonalities between herself and Galladon and making an adjustment to improve her outcome is symbolic of readers seeing the commonalities between themselves and Brienne and making an adjustment in their situation to improve their outcome.

In the midst of a Tower of Joy investigation, our situation is a Tower of Joy investigation.

Therefore, Brienne seeing the commonalities between herself and Galladon and making an adjustment to improve her outcome is symbolic of readers seeing the commonalities between themselves and Brienne and making an adjustment in their situation to improve their outcome with the Tower of Joy investigation.

A Story Is A Symbol Of You

At this moment, you may be feeling the sensation that the story is looking at you or pointing at you, notwithstanding its lack of eyes and hands. The feeling may even be uncomfortable if it’s new to you. ‘Are you suggesting that the story knows that I’m investigating it for Tower of Joy clues?’ you may wonder. Rest assured, the story has not suddenly become aware of you, or thinking, or sentient. It’s just a stack of books. What really happened is that you became aware of yourself in Brienne.

Until now, you’ve been living out Brienne’s life vicariously through her story. Although the experience hasn’t made your hands dirty or your muscles sore like it has done to Brienne, it has made you immersed. Now, it’s as if the you that lived out this Brienne chapter is being merged with the you that’s analytically combing the story in an emotionally detached manner for clues about what happened at the Tower of Joy. Now that the two you’s have been merged, suddenly the detached you is able to be held accountable for what the immersed you was feeling and thinking when it was reading this chapter, and that may feel scary. Your mind may be scrambling through the backlog of things you felt and thought while you were reading this chapter before, in order to change or erase things that might look bad. (Avoid doing that, if you can. Those things are among your most valuable clues for solving the Tower of Joy mystery.)

This new accountability may feel unfair. After all, those are two different you’s, aren’t they? In a sense, yes. But ultimately, no. Ultimately, there is only one you, and you’re accountable for the things you felt and thought in one state of mind regardless if you entered another state of mind, if some time has passed, or if you disagree with yourself in the past.

You might be wondering, ‘So what’s the penalty? What’s going to happen to me now that I’m being held accountable for my incongruencies when interpreting the story?’ The answer is nothing will happen to you that you don’t do to yourself. I’m not likely to jump out of the screen and get you. I wouldn’t even if I could. If you have an incongruence in your thoughts and feelings, it’s private, and you’re entitled to it. Granted, an incongruence is hypocritical, almost by definition. That might get you into trouble somehow someday. But, you’re entitled to your own troubles, too.

What I hope I’m highlighting is the truth of something I said earlier, or more particularly how obvious it is now that we’ve talked it out. The subject of any story is always ultimately the person reading it. For me, that’s me. But for you, that’s you! So if you want something to happen to you, such as to solve the Tower of Joy mystery, you’re going to have to do it to yourself. I’m just the disembodied voice who will walk you through it, if you want me to.

How sure are you that you want to know the answers to the Tower of Joy mystery? Because the answers have a toll, and I don’t just mean the time and effort it will take to read this series of essays. The toll I’m talking about is the emotional and psychological pain that accompanies a shift of tectonic proportion in how you see and feel about the entire story and everything in it, the sudden awareness that almost everything you thought and said about the story in the past was wrong and in the most humbling of ways. So, at the risk of sounding patronizing, it’s worth asking yourself one last time, how sure are you that you want to know the answers to the Tower of Joy mystery? By choosing to continue reading this series of essays, you’re electing to suffer any emotional and psychological pain that accompanies your awareness that you were wrong about the story in the past, in exchange for increased knowledge about the Tower of Joy mystery.

To conclude chapter 5, Galladon is symbolic of Brienne. Similarly, Brienne is symbolic of the reader. Brienne seeing the commonalities between herself and Galladon and making an adjustment to improve her outcome is symbolic of readers seeing the commonalities between themselves and Brienne and making an adjustment to improve their outcome with the Tower of Joy investigation. By depicting situations analogous to the reader’s situation, the story symbolizes the reader. And because the story symbolizes the reader, symbolic interpretation can have explanatory power over the reader’s reactions to and commentaries on the story. I think this, more than anything else, is what distinguishes symbolic interpretation from other kinds of interpretation.

[[ (These brackets mark sections that can be skipped. In them I will go on tangents that, while perhaps insightful, are entirely optional for understanding the essays. To skip them just scroll to the paragraph that ends with the bold closed brackets.)

Theme interpretation, for example, can have a great amount of explanatory power over the story by grouping together things that have something in common. For instance, theme analysis can show me that a theme of “situations that involve teeth doing violence to breasts” is “there’s a door.” As odd as it seems, it’s true that wherever there’s a situation that involves or refers to breasts being chewed or mutilated by somebody’s teeth, there is also mention of a door, every time.

Why? Theme analysis of the story will never tell you the answer to why, it will only tell you that the commonality exists. The reader’s job is to infer why. However, theme analysis of the audience’s interpretations of the story will tell you the answer to why. Once you’re applying theme analysis to the audience’s interpretations of the story, you’re doing symbolic analysis, or symbolic interpretation, sometimes called meta analysis. By my lights, theme analysis of the audience and symbolic interpretation are the same thing!

The underlying recognition is that a story is a symbol of real people in real life, and the person reading it is the first person the story symbolizes because he’s the person reading it. Symbolic interpretation is the process of looking for interpretive errors that a significant portion of the audience have in common (mistakes that many of them are habitually making), and then assuming that the author provoked those mistakes on purpose, and then estimating a corrective value statement (an ethic) that can explain why the author wrote the story to provoke that interpretive error so consistently. Symbolic analysis begins on the axiomatic assumption that the author intentionally provoked the error in order to make his story into a good demonstration of the ethic. After all, if you want to teach the audience a lesson about how they’re wrong about something important, you first have to get them to be wrong about it so you can catch them in the act. In symbolic analysis we’re always hunting for the moment when the story got us to be wrong. We’re actively seeking out a criticism of ourselves as if it’s treasure, because in story interpretation, it is. Stories are fundamentally lessons. If you can figure out what makes something tick, you can then use that knowledge to figure out how it has ticked in the past and will tick in the future.

Imagine that a grandmaster engineer who has no concept of clocks or time is handed a working analog clock that is set to 10:05 and he is tasked with analyzing its machinery and accurately predicting which numbers the clock’s hands will point to next. He will be able to say 11 and 6 before he will be able to say 10:06 o’clock. Such is the nature of predictions that are produced by symbolic interpretation. When you know the ethics that are making the story tick, you can predict its future behavior with remarkable accuracy, but you can’t always put it into conventional terms.

For this reason, I sometimes think of symbolic interpretation as the process of returning credit to the author. You see, the audience tends to think their thoughts and opinions about the story are their own, but as your understanding of ASOIAF grows you’ll see that much more of the audience’s thoughts and opinions about the story than you imagined possible actually originated in GRRM when he wrote the story. The audience’s opinions were caused by GRRM in the careful way he wrote the story. He wrote it with consideration to what an audience like us, with our generational attitudes and peculiarities, will think and feel about it. ]]

The next thing we need to analyze is the adjustment itself. The need to make an adjustment suggests that, before the adjustment, Brienne was doing something wrong. In her situation, what she seems to have been doing wrong was that she was restraining herself from using her magic sword Oathkeeper, or more generally, that she was handicapping herself by trying to be honorable. Since Brienne is symbolic of us through her engagement with a story, our need to make an adjustment suggests that, before the adjustment, we are doing something wrong. So our question now should be ‘What am I doing wrong in my interpretation of the Tower of Joy mystery that is preventing me from solving it?’

Apart from neglecting symbolic interpretation or doing it with bad form, there is a more critical thing that readers are doing wrong in the interpretation of the Tower of Joy mystery (and every mystery, you’ll come to see) that the reader needs to correct before the Tower of Joy mystery is likely to become solvable. The things readers are doing wrong in the interpretation of the Tower of Joy mystery are also being done in the interpretation of this chapter specifically, AFFC 20 Brienne IV. So, by building our understanding of this chapter, we can get a sense of how we’re wrong about it, and then apply that model of our wrongness to the Tower of Joy mystery, too. This chapter analysis will drill directly into ASOIAF’s actionable takeaway, or “moral of the story.” That analysis will be chapter 8 of this essay. In chapter 6, let’s iron out the details of our symbols in the Whispers≈TOJ parallel. Explanations are helpful, but sometimes the best way to teach something is to just start doing it.

Next: Chapter 6 – The Fight and Fighters

Beginning: Chapter 0-4 – Introduction


Created Jun 21, 2024
Updated Jun 23, 2024 – Symbol Of You
Updated Jun 26, 2024 – Minor fixes/changes, Add Conclusion
Updated Jul 9, 2024 – Minor changes, Add bracket section