The Others & Evil: GRRM's Words

[William MK Stark]

Oh I don't know.
Enslaving thousands of dead people, killing who knows how many people (one of which we saw was done for amusement), butchering hundreds of nights watch brothers in an extremely brutal, harsh way. Take your pick.
I find this idea of the others being good absurd. More in depth sure i'll settle for that, in fact i would welcome it. But if they turn out to be "good" or the closest thing to it, i'll go to my grave saying that was one of the biggest mistakes GRRM made. The ship for a good version of the others has long sailed

We don't understand the nature of these dead wights, so "enslaving" may not be an appropriate word.

They sure butchered hundreds of NW in brutal ways, but the same can  be said for every single army getting the drop on another army, it is war. 

 

Then again, in no where did I say I thought the Others were "good", I said that we should not be so quick to judge them as complete evil. They are in a way, just like the humans,capable of extreme brutalities, the question is if whether they have other, more understandable characteristics like humans or not, or if they are so different that our morality cannot be applied to them. 

[divine_moose]

Sometimes, I think that George tries too hard to be the antithesis to Tolkien. He often references plot points from those books that dissatisfied him (Gandalf's resurrection, Aragorn's coronation equating happily ever after), but to feasibly make readers sympathetic towards a hypothetically altruistic version of the Others would be the equivalent of digging out of a literary mine shaft.

 

They are described as cold dead things hating all life. They are necromatic mass-murderers. They are harbingers of the apocalypse in legend. But we find out in book 7 they volunteer at the Fleabottom Soup Kitchen on the weekends, so it turns out they weren't that bad after all.

 

And if they turn out to not be the penultimate antagonists of the series, then who could take their place? Even if this does happen, I don't think George is the kind of author to do something that important so late in the narrative. Starting from the very first chapter, they've always been lurking in the background.

[Helikzhan]

The nature of evil as stated, is understood differently by different societies and cultures, and varies between human beings. It does not always appear as a question mark. A lot of murderers and tyrants throughout history are fully in the awareness of the public. Their acts are considered evil not because they are throughout mysterious, but because they are somewhat understood through a certain point of view and standards. Most people don't refer to science and psychology when they determine if an individual is evil or not.

 

We sure found the Predator (and Jaws) mysterious and terrifying, but even the characters in the story didn't initially find it evil. Fear doesn't equal evilness. Only after we learnt its motive did its evil nature become canon and profound, because its motive is unacceptable and pointless by most humans' standards. Had it been revealed to be a guardian of the forest or something, angered by the humans' interference with the forest, and was trying to drive them out, would you say so certainly that it was evil ? Sure, it wouldn't be considered good either, but not condemned as such a monster.

 

Again, how do you know that they are hunting for sport ? They didn't display the humans as trophies like the predators, if anything they were trying to enlarge their army, which is a more reasonable motive. The locations of all the Others' attacks so far are beyond the Wall, which is by the vow of the Night's Watch, not the realm of men. If anything, the humans are the invaders here and the Others, like most natives species, are probably pushing them back, the same thing that tCotF tried to do to the First Men, and in Avatar the Navi trying to do to the humans. 

 

In every culture around the world evil is ascribed to that which cannot be explained away by other measures. Evil is a God construct. It isn't applicable when a real world reason exists behind an act such as murder. The truth is most murder, most assault lacks a genuine reason beyond I felt like it.

 

If there was some reason given that made sense for mass murderers to do what they did they would no longer be considered evil. I think we have some of that already with the way people talk about war. You can kill someone in war, smash their head in with the butt of your gun and nobody calls you evil. Not when the man now dead on the floor could have very easily been standing over your corpse.

 

Truth is most of these acts do spring from real life triggers. It just isn't so well understood by the scientific community. We're all animals to some degree but our position in society and general perspective on life is directly tied to our animal outbursts. The better life is, the fewer outbursts there are.

 

Benchly wrote this regarding his Jaws antagonist: Sharks are like ax-murderers, Martin. People react to them with their guts. There’s something crazy and evil and uncontrollable about them.

 

The fear and the evil comes from not knowing the reason. The motive is there. We know it. Shark gets hungry, shark must eat. In the book ( and movie ) however, Martin is wrestling with the personal vendetta angle. That the shark is somehow thinking the way he would if he were in the shark's position. In this way the book ( and movie ) are showing us the mind of the captain as he projects unto nature ( the shark ). The mystery is in his mind but it still works to produce the image of an evil fish hell bent on killing humans.

 

There is no indication whatsoever that the Others were impinged upon by men. There is no trigger aside from the bleeding comet that could have hastened their advance to the south. In the prologue right up to the last page the only thing we know of the Others is that they are alien to us and totally bent on the destruction of man.

 

Apart from GRRM opening a massive new culture background ( something he has already said is not in the cards ) there is nothing left to assume the Others will be related to humans emotionally or logically.

 

I take from the books that they hunt by their description and what usually precedes an action. Camouflage - check, silent  - check, leaving no trace - check.

 

All of the initial encounters with the Others work this way. As Tormund noted they are always there watching. I suppose a deer thinks the same way when he timidly steps out into the open.

[LordPathera]

 

snip

 

snip

 

I agree with these two and would add that trying to make the Others "relatable or sympathetic" or try to browbeat the audience into believing that the Others are "grey" despite much evidence to the contrary would ruin the Others and weaken the whole story as a result.

 

How do I know this? Look no further than the reapers from the Mass Effect video game series.

 

They were originally introduced as a mysterious genocidal race of powerful organic-synthetic squid-ships capable of turning the dead into soldiers and controlling people by intruding into their subconscious with a form of mind-control called indoctrination. They also break down captives into organic paste to create more reapers and have systematically wiped out galactic civilizations every 50 thousand years for countless cycles for reasons that were unknown to the gamer.

 

Then that reason was introduced in the crappy ending and it was terrible. Why? For many reasons. But formost was that the the reapers were revealed to really be the play-things of some cosmic AI child that created the reapers to wipe out organics so that they aren't wiped out by synthetics (robots). It did so because it believed that that the "created will always rebel and destroy their creators." Despite numerous examples of where synthetics were trying to wipe out organics or that peace between synthetics and organics was very possible. Does the player get to argue this or point out the AI child's bs? Nope.

 

With all of the POVs and plotlines that Martin has to cover, it's too late to try and shoe-horn in a "sympathetic" angle for the Others. If he tried then it would seem cheap and undeveloped. It's better that the Others remain a mystery to the reader regarding motivation and goals. Part of what makes the Others so chilling is that unanswered mystery to their motivations. If he wants to expand on the Others motivations then it would be best if Martin kept things simple. Simple motivations can still make for good stories.

 

Littlefinger; Tywin; Varys; Ramsey; Roose; Craster; and so on do not have complicated motivations and are still well-written regardless of being evil or grey. If the Others believe themselves to be justified for some reason then fine. Just don't try to browbeat the audience into not seeing them as evil or antagonistic by "backtracking".

[kimim]

Oh I don't know.
Enslaving thousands of dead people, killing who knows how many people (one of which we saw was done for amusement), butchering hundreds of nights watch brothers in an extremely brutal, harsh way. Take your pick.
I find this idea of the others being good absurd. More in depth sure i'll settle for that, in fact i would welcome it. But if they turn out to be "good" or the closest thing to it, i'll go to my grave saying that was one of the biggest mistakes GRRM made. The ship for a good version of the others has long sailed

 

 

You mention that Others "enslave thousands of dead people." You can't enslave a dead person, any more than you can kill a dead person, or torture them. Far better to enslave a dead person than a living person, imo, and better to use corpses as cannon fodder than living people.You also mention that the others butcher the NW "in an extremely brutal, harsh way." What they do is no harsher than how human armies treat one another. Tyrion burns a good portion of Stannis's army to death, with wildfire.

 

For beings at war with humanity, Others have been slow to kill. For thousands of years the wildlings lived in small communities, and had no armies or fortifications. Despite being vulnerable, they're still around. Compare this with how the lions and the wolves rampage through the Riverlands. Riverlanders are killed, tortured, raped. They will probably starve in the winter, as their late-summer, autumn crops have been burnt. LF is looking forward to charging these starving people high prices for his grain.

 

I don't think low numbers can account for Other behavior, as they can raise the dead, which means they've always had access to an army. Kill a village. Raise the dead. Kill another village. Raise more dead. If they only wanted to kill humans, they could have, and no one south of the Wall would have cared. Yet they don't. It's almost as if they now have a reason to go on the offensive and any reason, would make them more than a zombie apocalypse.

 

Anyhow, I think they'll get very nasty, and they'll be terrifying, because they're mysterious, different. Using a corpse as a soldier might be more humane (again imo) than using a live soldier, but it's also alien, weird, incomprehensible. It's terrifying, but not necessarily any more evil than  what we have so far seen in Westeros or Essos.

[Sanset]

[ Includes spoilers from the show based on the books, and the 1993 letter. Proceed at your own risk ]


I'm not sure if there is really a rise in the topic or if I'm just now noticing the talks, but ever since the episode "Hardhome" of that show, it seems there is a lot of discussion about whether or not the Others are "evil." So I decided to collect some quotes and share my own thoughts about the subject.

To many in the fandom, I don't think this really needs clarification, but often I see someone say that there has to be more to the Others because "GRRM doesn't write evil." Let's ignore the fact that many of his human characters are just plain evil for a second and focus on some quotes by GRRM that may have given fans the impression that GRRM "doesn't write evil."
 

About my question. Melisandre, I hope I am not butchering the spelling, really seems to be evil to me. She births shadow babies, and talks very much of blood. This seems to be blood magic to me. Perhaps its not.


But if it is, then is it evil, for Mirri was evil. Or just a vengeful bitch like the terriorists.

Mirri Maz Duur considered herself a hero, and no doubt Melisandre feels the same. What they are in truth... well, that's for each reader to determine for himself. I don't intend to make it easy.

Thoros is a totally different person. He is kind hearted and nice. Is this just because he washed out and became a fake priest. Or is this the way most red priests act?

Red priests are human beings, and like other human beings, they vary greatly.

Are the Others just pure evil, or are we going to find out more about their motives later on?

Keep reading

Another interesting thing from the con, at one point in a panel GRRM was commenting that he didn't like how in a lot of fantasy stories various races are all defined by a single personality (i.e. all orcs are evil, all elves are wise, etc), whereas it would be more realistic for various individuals within a race to have different personalities, viewpoints, etc. Some quick-witted audience member asked him how that idea applied to the Others in his own books, to which he replied, "I'm not gonna answer that." Food for thought.


He also answered some questions, and had some interesting things to say. He repeatedly emphasized that he prefers to write grey characters, because in real life people are complex; no one is pure evil or pure good. Fiction tends to divide people into heroes who do no wrong and villains who go home and kick their dogs and beat their wives, but that reality is much different. He cited a soldier who heroically saves his friends' lives, but then goes home and beats his wife. Which is he, hero or villain? Martin said both and that neither act cancels out the other.

 
In all of these quotes, I believe he is only referring to humans when it comes to black-white-gray morality. Whenever he speaks of conflict and every person considering themselves the hero, I think he is only referring to the human wars that are going on. The Lannisters can't be called "evil" because we know that there are sympathetic aspects to Tyrion, Jaime, Tommen, and Myrcella. Many of the Lannister relatives have nothing to do with the main conflict with the North and Riverlands. They are simply fighting for their families. (There are probably other quotes like this in various interviews across the web, but I'm willing to bet that they can be seen the same way.)

With the Others, it's different. I think that GRRM isn't being inconsistent here because the Others are not a "real" race. They're not humans. They're not "people." We don't know for certain what exactly they are, but I personally think that we have enough hints to say that they are not a race; they're created. They've been called "Neverborn." We had a clue about Craster's sons coming back from one of his wives, and the show seemingly confirmed that theory in season four, episode four "Oathkeeper."

Let's look at what GRRM has said specifically about the Others:

The Others are not dead. They are strange, beautiful… think, oh… the Sidhe made of ice, something like that… a different sort of life… inhuman, elegant, dangerous.
…

“(We’ll learn more about their) history, certainly, but I don’t know about culture,” he said. “I don’t know if they have a culture.”
…

From the 1993 letter:

The greatest danger of all, however, comes from the north, from the icy wastes beyond the Wall, where half-forgotten demons out of legend, the inhuman others, raise cold legions of the undead and the neverborn and prepare to ride down on the winds of winter to extinguish everything that we would call "life."

 
 
Basically, GRRM doesn't consider the Others human, so they can't really have what we know as shades of gray. Is this a poor explanation? Maybe. But I don't consider this story "above" that kind of trope. If GRRM was writing knock-off orcs, like trollocs or urgals, then it might be different. Actually, in my eyes, because his wights are seeming just puppets used by the Others who haven't made much of an appearance, he has made a much more pure evil than Tolkien, who is often derided for that. His orcs could speak. His orcs are named. I'd say the fight between Ugluk and Grishnahk is more interesting in terms of characterization than anything GRRM has done with the Others and wights so far. Perhaps one day, when GRRM writes more about the Others there can be a different tale told but if the unspeakable should happen, what he has written now does not suggest there is anything more to the Others besides the ultimate enemy against humanity.


I think there is nothing wrong with GRRM playing the evil card straight. He has no problems making atrocious characters like Gregor Clegane, Ramsay Snow, Tywin Lannister, Vargo Hoat & the Bloody Mummers, and many Ghiscari. Some may get a line or two "explaining" their motivations, but for most of them that little tidbit of info doesn't make their reputation or actions any better. (I couldn't care less that Gregor gets headaches or the baseborn Ramsay's mother was unstable in terms of judging their atrocities.)
 
tl;dr

In my opinion, GRRM's words about good vs evil only applies to humans

The Others are not human, so GRRM's words about good vs evil do not apply

The Others being evil does not take away from the story, especially one filled with vile characters beyond redemption

The Others & wights are more evil than Tolkien's orcs, until such a time that GRRM can explain more about them.

Feel free, no, welcome, to disagree. After all, I didn't collect every quote. :)
 
EDIT: Forgot to add in this quote. It's from another GRRM work, "And Seven Times Never Kill Man." Could be relevant, could also not be. Interesting though.

“Do you believe in evil?” Arik neKrol asked Jannis Ryther as they looked down on the City of the Steel Angels from the crest of a nearby hill…

“Evil?” Ryther murmured in a distracted way…

“Evil,” neKrol repeated. The trader was a short, pudgy man, his features decidedly mongoloid except for the flame-red hair that fell nearly to his waist. “It is a religious concept, and I am not a religious man. Long ago, when I was a very child growing up on ai-Emerel, I decided that there was no good or evil, only different ways of thinking.” His small, soft hands felt around in the dust until he had a large, jagged shard that filled his fist. He stood and offered it to Ryther. “The Steel Angels have made me believe in evil again,” he said.

 

 
What a curious quote!
«There is no good and evil...» That is so Voldemort. (flight of death)

I suppose this Jannis Ryther guy would say that Voldemort is not evil, only he thinks in a different way. He seems to be the kind that plays the "philosopher" but he is only a jerk with a dictionary.
 
 
I think GRRM is writing some things in a way that he only describes some phenomenons, so he lets the reader decide what to make of it. That's what is most interesting in his writing: GRRM makes the readers think. It's not just entertainment, a distraction nor a lecture.
 
IMO the Others are evil, and Melisandre is evil. I don't care if they think of themselves as heroes or whatever craziness they develop in their minds. Shadow-babies are evil, no matter the way of thinking. Or should I say: It's an evil way of thinking.
 
 
 
Edited to correct the BBCode.
ETA: Voldemort means "flight of death" in French.

[LordStoneheart]

Where is this idea that Others are a "force of nature" coming from? Where in GRRM's quotes I've provided and in the novels does it suggest that?

[LordStoneheart]

 

 

You mention that Others "enslave thousands of dead people." You can't enslave a dead person, any more than you can kill a dead person, or torture them. Far better to enslave a dead person than a living person, imo, and better to use corpses as cannon fodder than living people.You also mention that the others butcher the NW "in an extremely brutal, harsh way." What they do is no harsher than how human armies treat one another. Tyrion burns a good portion of Stannis's army to death, with wildfire.

It's terrifying, but not necessarily any more evil than  what we have so far seen in Westeros or Essos.

 

Well, first off, if necromany doesn't strike you as bad I'm sure there will be nothing that can convince the Others are just a purely bad force. Killing people and using their bodies as puppets to kill more people is about as low as you can get.

 

The comparison to the wars of Westeros as I've mentioned before is faulty. Tyrion knows why he was fighting Stannis' forces. To keep the Lannsiter regime in power and prevent a most-likely deadly siege. The human wars have causes and motivations that are known to us and in each sides' eyes, justified.

 

We don't have that with the Others. We don't have their POV, which Martin has emphasized as part of what he likes to write about. We don't have their motivation. We don't have their justification. Humans can be atrocious, but at the end of the day the humans of Westeros are humans. Humans who will negotiate and exchange hostages, kneel, fight to the end, come up with a truce, and many other solutions. With the Others, it's kill humans, end of story. The humans fight the Others as a reaction because they are being hunted. It is not the same. Your comparison is weak.

[William MK Stark]

 

In every culture around the world evil is ascribed to that which cannot be explained away by other measures. Evil is a God construct. It isn't applicable when a real world reason exists behind an act such as murder. The truth is most murder, most assault lacks a genuine reason beyond I felt like it.

 

If there was some reason given that made sense for mass murderers to do what they did they would no longer be considered evil. I think we have some of that already with the way people talk about war. You can kill someone in war, smash their head in with the butt of your gun and nobody calls you evil. Not when the man now dead on the floor could have very easily been standing over your corpse.

 

Truth is most of these acts do spring from real life triggers. It just isn't so well understood by the scientific community. We're all animals to some degree but our position in society and general perspective on life is directly tied to our animal outbursts. The better life is, the fewer outbursts there are.

 

Benchly wrote this regarding his Jaws antagonist: Sharks are like ax-murderers, Martin. People react to them with their guts. There’s something crazy and evil and uncontrollable about them.

 

The fear and the evil comes from not knowing the reason. The motive is there. We know it. Shark gets hungry, shark must eat. In the book ( and movie ) however, Martin is wrestling with the personal vendetta angle. That the shark is somehow thinking the way he would if he were in the shark's position. In this way the book ( and movie ) are showing us the mind of the captain as he projects unto nature ( the shark ). The mystery is in his mind but it still works to produce the image of an evil fish hell bent on killing humans.

 

There is no indication whatsoever that the Others were impinged upon by men. There is no trigger aside from the bleeding comet that could have hastened their advance to the south. In the prologue right up to the last page the only thing we know of the Others is that they are alien to us and totally bent on the destruction of man.

 

Apart from GRRM opening a massive new culture background ( something he has already said is not in the cards ) there is nothing left to assume the Others will be related to humans emotionally or logically.

 

I take from the books that they hunt by their description and what usually precedes an action. Camouflage - check, silent  - check, leaving no trace - check.

 

All of the initial encounters with the Others work this way. As Tormund noted they are always there watching. I suppose a deer thinks the same way when he timidly steps out into the open.

The way you and I differentiate  an what is evil already helps my case, I said that the definition of evil varies from individual to individual, and clearly you and I understand it differently. By the way, if every "evil" act can be excused with a reason, why do people go to jail and sometimes get executed ? That's because their acts are considered "wrong" and their motives not justifiable to the many (through to themselves), making them "evil" in the society's eyes. We know why the Nazis killed so many Jews, racism and superiority among the reasons, so do we think the Nazis as anything but cruel and evil ? 

 

About the implications, I think it's up to each reader to find out for themselves, I myself found plenty pointing to there is more than meet the eyes, but you read the same thing and saw none of it.

 

The camouflage and lack of traces point to hunting behavior as well much as it does to guerilla warfare, which again depends on each culture's perspective, is either cowardly or smart. 

 

I see that you've formed your opinion so firmly that any compromise is unacceptable for you. We just have to agree to disagree. I myself will reserve from jumping to conclusions right now. Time and the last two books will help me to make a final understanding.

[William MK Stark]

 

Well, first off, if necromany doesn't strike you as bad I'm sure there will be nothing that can convince the Others are just a purely bad force. Killing people and using their bodies as puppets to kill more people is about as low as you can get.

 

The comparison to the wars of Westeros as I've mentioned before is faulty. Tyrion knows why he was fighting Stannis' forces. To keep the Lannsiter regime in power and prevent a most-likely deadly siege. The human wars have causes and motivations that are known to us and in each sides' eyes, justified.

 

We don't have that with the Others. We don't have their POV, which Martin has emphasized as part of what he likes to write about. We don't have their motivation. We don't have their justification. Humans can be atrocious, but at the end of the day the humans of Westeros are humans. Humans who will negotiate and exchange hostages, kneel, fight to the end, come up with a truce, and many other solutions. With the Others, it's kill humans, end of story. The humans fight the Others as a reaction because they are being hunted. It is not the same. Your comparison is weak.

Sure, but is it even necromancy in the strict sense ? Do the Others bring back a corrupted version of the dead as traditional necromancy or do they simply use the bodies as vessel for the cold ? We don't know.

The reason for the Others' war may be understood by them, and even once known to men as well. And that may be the point, men have forgotten the cause for the 8000 year long conflict, and make tales of the Others as dead, unthinking, unfeeling killing machines. The two first charateristics we know are wrong, the third thus should be placed under question.

Again, these things may be provided in time, I don't see why we need to jump to conclusion now when the book named WoW is coming soon. Then we will most likely be sure and won't have to make various speculations or hasty conclusions.

[divine_moose]

You're seeing an apple and trying to call it an orange right now.

[Cladinator]

The way I interpret The Others isn't really as "evil". They might be the ultimate threat to humans/CotF, that's true.

 

I look at them more like a natural disaster. Tornadoes, hurricanes, volcanoes, etc, are not evil. Though, they are a major threat to humans. 

[divine_moose]

Tornadoes, hurricanes, and volcanoes don't think though. They don't choose to cause destruction, they just happen.

 

Others are another story.

[LordStoneheart]

Sure, but is it even necromancy in the strict sense ? Do the Others bring back a corrupted version of the dead as traditional necromancy or do they simply use the bodies as vessel for the cold ? We don't know.

The reason for the Others' war may be understood by them, and even once known to men as well. And that may be the point, men have forgotten the cause for the 8000 year long conflict, and make tales of the Others as dead, unthinking, unfeeling killing machines. The two first charateristics we know are wrong, the third thus should be placed under question.

Again, these things may be provided in time, I don't see why we need to jump to conclusion now when the book named WoW is coming soon. Then we will most likely be sure and won't have to make various speculations or hasty conclusions.

 

Waging a war over an issue that happened 8000 years ago seems extremely petty. None of the current humans know about this ancient conflict. If the Others know, why aren't they telling anyone? The ancient feud theory is dumb to me because it still just leads to the genocide of innocent humans by the Others, humans who certainly had nothing to do with the conflict. Let's look at Dany's revenge for example. The houses that brought down house Targaryen are still around, and some of the figures involved too (like Jaime, Doran, Jon Connington, Varys). It wasn't that long in the past to the point where some of Dany's views can look sympathetic, yet many also suggest that Dany has no case. Imagine if Robert's Rebellion happened even 1000 years ago. That could not be justified any way shape or form. 

[William MK Stark]

 

Waging a war over an issue that happened 8000 years ago seems extremely petty. None of the current humans know about this ancient conflict. If the Others know, why aren't they telling anyone? The ancient feud theory is dumb to me because it still just leads to the genocide of innocent humans by the Others, humans who certainly had nothing to do with the conflict. Let's look at Dany's revenge for example. The houses that brought down house Targaryen are still around, and some of the figures involved too (like Jaime, Doran, Jon Connington, Varys). It wasn't that long in the past to the point where some of Dany's views can look sympathetic, yet many also suggest that Dany has no case. Imagine if Robert's Rebellion happened even 1000 years ago. That could not be justified any way shape or form. 

They are a different species, most likely a immortal or close too it, so their way of counting time may differ from human's. It's possible that it happened just yesterday for them. Another possibility is that the reason for their attacks are more recent and probably based on some prophecy of theirs ( it would be interesting because it would make a parallel with Rhaegar's actions). They may be trying to tell people about it too, but the humans have lost the ability to understand their speech. As stated, I don't say that they are good or we should root for them, I just say that we should try to understand before judging them monsters without reasonable cause.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Most readers are human. Humans will instinctively cheer for humans against a common enemy (a trope that the film version of Starship Troopers relies on to make its point). From the point of view of humans, the Others are evil: they are seeking to freeze the world, engage in a war of extermination, use evil necromancy, et cetera. This then is the default.

 

What has Martin done to displace this default assumption? Nothing. He's laid no groundwork like, say, Tad Williams. The Others are, for our purposes, evil in a "the US and USSR team up to defeat space aliens" sort of way.  

[LordStoneheart]

Most readers are human. Humans will instinctively cheer for humans against a common enemy (a trope that the film version of Starship Troopers relies on to make its point). From the point of view of humans, the Others are evil: they are seeking to freeze the world, engage in a war of extermination, use evil necromancy, et cetera. This then is the default.

 

What has Martin done to displace this default assumption? Nothing. He's laid no groundwork like, say, Tad Williams. The Others are, for our purposes, evil in a "the US and USSR team up to defeat space aliens" sort of way.  

 

Seconded again!

 

The question then turns to whether he will lay groundwork in the coming book, or if it's too late for that to be done believably.

[William MK Stark]

 

Seconded again!

 

The question then turns to whether he will lay groundwork in the coming book, or if it's too late for that to be done believably.

Agreed that it would take some seriously good writing to make that possible. But as I told you in the first post, he could have been secretly laying the foundation for that already, just like for Dany and the dragons for fire, just in a way more subtle way. 

[IMNHAAO]

....................

In my opinion, GRRM's words about good vs evil only applies to humans
..........

 

[oversimplification mode on] Humans in the series are scum. A bunch of despicable, petty, amoral, cruel and violent beings. So unscrupulous to have killed thousands in horrific ways for power, the kind that unleash freaking dragons on the world so that they might conquer a land by burning adversaries alive. The few decent ones are just too few to count, or so I am supposed to think as we think reasonable to judge all Others on the actions of the few we have seen. [oversimplification mode off]

 

I still do not know enough about the Others to judge anything. I hate rush judgement just as much as I hate the idea of judging an entire species or even just a race on the basis of such very limited and one-sided accounts.
I must admit that I would find a copt-out on GRRM's part to have created a palette of grey to then limit it only to the species that most people will automatically (and unthinkingly) identify with, it would really cheapen the whole story for me.

[LordStoneheart]

I still do not know enough about the Others to judge anything. I hate rush judgement just as much as I hate the idea of judging an entire species or even just a race on the basis of such very limited and one-sided accounts.
I must admit that I would find a copt-out on GRRM's part to have created a palette of grey to then limit it only to the species that most people will automatically (and unthinkingly) identify with, it would really cheapen the whole story for me.

Diffr'nt strokes for diffr'nt folks. I'm the opposite. I think it is too late in the game for him to try to add any sort of depth or explanation for Others' that would qualify under his "no good or evil" concept. That would cheapen the story for me.

As far as your first paragraph, I think simplification works because my response is also pretty simple. Humans are monsters, yes, but they're human. At the risk of sounding like a facebook meme, people are just people no matter the little differences. Ultimately I think they will side with their own species. I'll support the Lannisters over the Others if it really comes down to it.