Are the Others really the big bad ?

[House Cambodia]

3 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Most readers are human. Thus, all things being equal, the reader will cheer for the human characters, unless given explicit reason. Martin thus far has done nothing to displace that default assumption, so having the Others not be the Big Bad would be bad writing - he's left himself too little time to pivot.

"Humans are the real baddies" doesn't work, since it would be an arse-pull that contradicts the first five volumes. If Martin tried it now, you'd still have readers cheering for the humans anyway.

I can see GRRM rising above the popular mood and giving us exactly what he wants in the end. I think he'll get quite a thrill out of subverting our 30-year expectations. A large part of his genius is presenting each chapter in a character's point of view. Each point of view is biased and partial - and often plain wrong. All of them have been himan points of view - that's a substantial collective bias. Some of us are picking up subtle hints in the 5 volumes so far, but I expect them to become far more explicit in the forthcoming book, given its title.

And is it so outrageous? I don't know GRRM's deep political beliefs but he'd get a massive thumbs up from me if the saga turns out to be an allegory on us as a human race with our petty greed, selfishness and ignorance blindly and complacently bringing planet Earth to the brink of a long, cold winter that will wipe out all life.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Except that the Others are seeking to destroy humanity via a zombie army. Extermination of humanity and necromancy are not traits that suggest moral ambiguity. Trying to shoe-horn moral greyness* into this context would just be straight-out bad writing at this point.

I mean, the closest precedent is Tad Williams' Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn, where the bad guy is given an understandable backstory that explains his actions - doesn't stop him being a bad guy, but he's victim as well as villain. Williams, however, carefully built this up over the course of his series - something Martin hasn't done. 

*Can we also dispense with this notion that Martin is all about moral greyness? Ramsay Bolton and Gregor Clegane are *not* morally grey.

[[Deleted]]

9 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Except that the Others are seeking to destroy humanity via a zombie army. Extermination of humanity and necromancy are not traits that suggest moral ambiguity. Trying to shoe-horn moral greyness* into this context would just be straight-out bad writing at this point.

I mean, the closest precedent is Tad Williams' Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn, where the bad guy is given an understandable backstory that explains his actions - doesn't stop him being a bad guy, but he's victim as well as villain. Williams, however, carefully built this up over the course of his series - something Martin hasn't done. 

*Can we also dispense with this notion that Martin is all about moral greyness? Ramsay Bolton and Gregor Clegane are *not* morally grey.

Much as I admire Tolkien, and I do admire Tolkien — he’s been a huge influence on me, and his Lord of the Rings is the mountain that leans over every other fantasy written since and shaped all of modern fantasy — there are things about it, the whole concept of the Dark Lord, and good guys battling bad guys, Good versus Evil, while brilliantly handled in Tolkien, in the hands of many Tolkien successors, it has become kind of a cartoon. We don’t need any more Dark Lords, we don’t need any more, ‘Here are the good guys, they’re in white, there are the bad guys, they’re in black. And also, they’re really ugly, the bad guys.

It is certainly a genuine, legitimate topic as the core of fantasy, but I think the battle between Good and Evil is waged within the individual human hearts. We all have good in us and we all have evil in us, and we may do a wonderful good act on Tuesday and a horrible, selfish, bad act on Wednesday, and to me, that’s the great human drama of fiction. I believe in grey characters, as I’ve said before. We all have good and evil in us and there are very few pure paragons and there are very few orcs. A villain is a hero of the other side, as someone said once, and I think there’s a great deal of truth to that, and that’s the interesting thing. In the case of war, that kind of situation, so I think some of that is definitely what I’m aiming at.

• AssignmentX interview, June 2011.

[The Marquis de Leech]

And that quote is directly contradicted by the actual text of the story.

Gregor Clegane is Evil. Ramsey Bolton is Evil. Septon Utt is Evil. Claiming that "no, no, they are grey characters" is to ignore what is written.

[House Cambodia]

Well, if you don't like 'moral greyness', let's put it this way: GRRM's characters are always motivated by what they think is right, from their POV. Trouble is, sometimes different POVs are incompatible, and most are too narrow. Cercei's desire to protect her children conflict with Tyrion's desire to instil some discipline in Joffrey; Robb Stark's concern for a girl's honour conflicts with Walder Frey's concept of family honour. Few are willing or able to make sacrifices for the greater good. Real life is like this.

Secondly, a 'zombie army' is inhuman. So is 'Gaia' - climate change and environmental destruction. Neither are the latter evil - they are mere responses to human behaviour. That is the point. GRRM has Catholic roots - he knows the Creation myth where the First Man promised to take care of God's Creation, and promptly trashed it. He knows the consequence spelt out in the 66th book of the Bible. We will continue lusting after the next iPhones and squabbling with neighbours whilst ignoring the cassandras warning us of the snarks and grumpkins; we're at the point of no return. By the time we wake up, winter has come, the wall is down, the undead have overwhelmed us. And it will be our fault. We played the game, and lost. The First Men made a deal with the Others according to some theories, but humans broke the agreement in the time of the 13th LC of the NW, the very same Night's King; the consequence of that is nigh.

[The Marquis de Leech]

"Doing what is right" is a meaningless truism - by that reasoning Gregor, Ramsay, and Joffrey were doing what they thought was right (in this case hurting others because they can).

I'd also suggest that a scenario whereby the Others win to teach humanity a lesson is a pointlessly nihilistic, to the point of trolling the reader. It's basically saying "sorry, guys, it's too late to do anything, and we're all doomed because we're all shit. The End." The series thus far isn't nihilistic, but rather existentialist - "All men must die. But first we live." It's a recognition that humans can achieve a lot against adversity.

[House Cambodia]

4 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

"Doing what is right" is a meaningless truism - by that reasoning Gregor, Ramsay, and Joffrey were doing what they thought was right (in this case hurting others because they can).

I'd also suggest that a scenario whereby the Others win to teach humanity a lesson is a pointlessly nihilistic, to the point of trolling the reader. It's basically saying "sorry, guys, it's too late to do anything, and we're all doomed because we're all shit. The End." The series thus far isn't nihilistic, but rather existentialist - "All men must die. But first we live." It's a recognition that humans can achieve a lot against adversity.

... and then die. We've been repeatedly told that beyond death there is nothing. I think the story is ultimately quite nihilistic actually, and your 'parody' of my position is bang on, both in terms of what we've done to our planet and how GRRM sees his fantasy turn out.

 

I guess in terms of GoT/ASOIAF we'll eventually see who's right and who's wrong. In real life, we don't have that luxury!

[[Deleted]]

The question is, how do we know the Others are trying to destroy humanity with a zombie army? We've been told that, but what proof do we have? We often hear that the Others want to "destroy the world". Again, how do we know that? What proof is there that the Others are "evil" in any sense of the word?

[House Cambodia]

^ We don't, but we might just know a little more on Sunday (or in a year since this is the book thread) 

[the trees have eyes]

6 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Most readers are human. Thus, all things being equal, the reader will cheer for the human characters, unless given explicit reason. Martin thus far has done nothing to displace that default assumption, so having the Others not be the Big Bad would be bad writing - he's left himself too little time to pivot.

"Humans are the real baddies" doesn't work, since it would be an arse-pull that contradicts the first five volumes. If Martin tried it now, you'd still have readers cheering for the humans anyway.

The George really is reaching out to a large audience!  Sorry, couldn't resist.  But I agree, the readership is well aware that people will bicker and squabble, intrigue and fight wars but that for every bad act / person there is also a good act / person out there.  He plays with the notion of redemption for characters like Jaime and Theon so to tell us that people are the real evil after all is a fairly banal way to treat his 30 year magnum opus.  Not to mention turning this chekhov's gun of the Others / zombies / Wall / War for the Dawn into a damp squib just to confound expectations is pretty shallow.

3 hours ago, Aegonzo The Great said:

Ned Stark at least seemed to be. There was a Cat chapter in the first book where Ned is standing naked in front of an open window at night while Cat is in bed bundled up and still shivering. We don't know if Cat was just a weak southerner and Ned's ability to withstand the cold was nothing out of the ordinary for any northerner, but it at least is some anecdotal evidence.

It is still summer at this point.  Ned is used to a far more temperate climate than Catelyn and is in his element.  The analogy would be someone from the south of France feeling the cold in Scotland more than the locals going around in T shirts while she was wrapped up in a coat and scarf.  Men also have more mass than women and so women tend to feel the cold more as evidenced by most offices or homes where the women reach for a cardigan or turn up the thermostat while the men are perfectly comfortable.

2 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Except that the Others are seeking to destroy humanity via a zombie army. Extermination of humanity and necromancy are not traits that suggest moral ambiguity. Trying to shoe-horn moral greyness* into this context would just be straight-out bad writing at this point.

I mean, the closest precedent is Tad Williams' Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn, where the bad guy is given an understandable backstory that explains his actions - doesn't stop him being a bad guy, but he's victim as well as villain. Williams, however, carefully built this up over the course of his series - something Martin hasn't done. 

*Can we also dispense with this notion that Martin is all about moral greyness? Ramsay Bolton and Gregor Clegane are *not* morally grey.

I'm fully on board with the idea that the morally grey concept is vastly overused.  The Bloody Mummers - and we can mention Rorge, Biter, Shagwell, Hoat to name a few - are sadistic because they enjoy it: they are not grey.  GRRM tells us repeatedly that people are complex and face difficult decisions, that they are imperfect, but the notion that everyone is morally compromised to the bone is overreach.

1 hour ago, House Cambodia said:

Well, if you don't like 'moral greyness', let's put it this way: GRRM's characters are always motivated by what they think is right, from their POV. Trouble is, sometimes different POVs are incompatible, and most are too narrow. Cercei's desire to protect her children conflict with Tyrion's desire to instil some discipline in Joffrey; Robb Stark's concern for a girl's honour conflicts with Walder Frey's concept of family honour. Few are willing or able to make sacrifices for the greater good. Real life is like this.

Secondly, a 'zombie army' is inhuman. So is 'Gaia' - climate change and environmental destruction. Neither are the latter evil - they are mere responses to human behaviour. That is the point. GRRM has Catholic roots - he knows the Creation myth where the First Man promised to take care of God's Creation, and promptly trashed it. He knows the consequence spelt out in the 66th book of the Bible. We will continue lusting after the next iPhones and squabbling with neighbours whilst ignoring the cassandras warning us of the snarks and grumpkins; we're at the point of no return. By the time we wake up, winter has come, the wall is down, the undead have overwhelmed us. And it will be our fault. We played the game, and lost. The First Men made a deal with the Others according to some theories, but humans broke the agreement in the time of the 13th LC of the NW, the very same Night's King; the consequence of that is nigh.

Climate change and environmental disasters like earthquakes and volcanic erruptions don't hunt down living beings and squeeze the life out of them.  The undead are not an elemental force they are a corrupted parody of what they were in life.  This is not an equivalence with climate change.  Benjen's men were slaughtered then left to be taken beyond the Wall by the Watch so they could kill LC Mormont and other officers.  This isn't rising sea levels, there is an intelligence guiding the attacks and it kills men, giants, horses, even bears and reanimates them for its own purposes.  What did the bear do to destroy the balance of nature / break the pact to deserve death and zombiefication?

1 hour ago, House Cambodia said:

... and then die. We've been repeatedly told that beyond death there is nothing. I think the story is ultimately quite nihilistic actually, and your 'parody' of my position is bang on, both in terms of what we've done to our planet and how GRRM sees his fantasy turn out.

 

I guess in terms of GoT/ASOIAF we'll eventually see who's right and who's wrong. In real life, we don't have that luxury!

I think GRRM got quite annoyed when one interviewer said that the story was nihilistic and flatly rejected it.  He plays with redemption, with the notion that the purpose of a ruler is to provide justice and his last book is entitled A Dream of Spring.  I don't think our bittersweet ending will be nihiistic or crush those ideas as futile hopes .

1 hour ago, Aegonzo The Great said:

The question is, how do we know the Others are trying to destroy humanity with a zombie army? We've been told that, but what proof do we have? We often hear that the Others want to "destroy the world". Again, how do we know that? What proof is there that the Others are "evil" in any sense of the word?

Well, where do the zombies come from?  They sure don't occur naturally but they are present in huge numbers north of the Wall and the wildlings are 100% certain the Others are attacking them and sending their dead against them as zombies.  Do we know the ultimate extent of the Others's plans?  No we don't but we have the story of the Long Night / Last Hero, we have the concrete existence of the Wall, we have the prophecy of the War for the Dawn / Prince that was Promised and we have thousands of zombies swarming over any living thing they can get their hands on.

Climate change is a problem in our world.  There is no evidence whatsoever that humanity have somehow upset some natural balance or broken some pact that has led to guardian spirits being unleashed on them to slaughter them and wild animals to boot.  People often complain that Westeros is effectively stuck in time that there is no invention or development.  Which does raise the question what has triggered the Others to return and act as they do in the very prologue to the series (the why now? question).  I understand why people reject the notion that the Others are a boilerplate demonic force leading a stereotypical fantasy "limitless army of evil" against noble altruistic humans and I do expect GRRM to have more up his sleeve than that.  I just don't buy that the slaughter north of the Wall and the previous Long Night is just down to a misunderstanding or to human transgressions.

[House Cambodia]

Quote

Climate change is a problem in our world.

Actually it's a problem in Planatos and is at the centre of the whole story! "Winter is Coming": The imbalanced seasons is a massive problem, and a winter the lasts a generation will have the effect of wiping out most life, even without zombies. GRRM has said somewhere that this climatic problem has magical roots and the ultimate resolution will include rebalancing the seasons. It's a shame you conflate earthquakes with human-caused environmental catastrophe, indicating that you take the matter about as seriously as Westeroi with the snarks and grumpkins. You're also taking my points too literally and not seeing the metaphorical and literary nature of the story as I see it.

I'm not ruling out redemption - as I indicated above, I see the 3 surviving Stark siblings as acting like Noah and his family after the flood (not too literally!) but only after huge carnage.

[[Deleted]]

2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Well, where do the zombies come from?  They sure don't occur naturally but they are present in huge numbers north of the Wall and the wildlings are 100% certain the Others are attacking them and sending their dead against them as zombies.  Do we know the ultimate extent of the Others's plans?  No we don't but we have the story of the Long Night / Last Hero, we have the concrete existence of the Wall, we have the prophecy of the War for the Dawn / Prince that was Promised and we have thousands of zombies swarming over any living thing they can get their hands on.

Where do the Others launch their attacks? They are attacking Men on THEIR land. The land north of the Wall is the last of the "Old World", the Others, CotF, giants, direwolves, the First Men, and magic in general still exist there, not so much south of the Wall. The Others are driving Man out of the land north of the Wall. The Wall is the boundry between these worlds. They even went so far, in the very prologue of the series, to let one Man live and travel back south of the Wall as a warning: "Keep out of our land, or we will slaughter you just like we did these other 2."

The zombies are actually perfect soldiers. Utterly without fear, completely immune to pain and fatigue, terrifying in their one-mindedness to accomplish their goals. The problem, of course, is it seems it's not easy to make new Others, so the Others are amassing an army the only way they know how. Who says zombies are evil? They are soldiers, they have a purpose, and they serve that purpose exceedingly well.

I do not buy the story of the Long Night. I have no doubt it happened, but I do severely doubt it happened the way Men said it did. Of course in retelling history, whoever is telling the story is going to make themselves the sympathetic characters in it. For all we know, the Men were the agressors last time, and before they realized how deep they were in, suddenly they became the hunted. It's the classic story of a bully getting punched in the mouth then going crying to mommy. I don't know for sure this is what happened, but I'm willing to bet the Others didn't just show up and start attacking without a good reason. Same thing goes to the prophecy.

Try to imagine this scenario, but from the Other's side: What if the Others are greenseers like Bran (which seems entirely possible) and they have their OWN prophecy of a terrible silver haired demon riding on the back of three huge fire breathing lizards that rain death and destruction from the sky. Suddenly, they sensed their prophecy is coming true, and they are working to amass an army to protect themselves for when that silver haired demon inevitably comes for them. To make this army, they have to kill Men, but it's a small price to pay for their own survival. I mean, what are Men good for, anyway? They are just parasites, taking from the land and giving nothing back, fighting their petty wars and killing each other, full of disease, greed, and bloodlust, and they were the agressors that forced your ancestors to fight the hugely destructive War For The Preservation.

There are many perfectly reasonable explanations for why the Others act the way they do. Remember, as GRRM himself said (paraphrasing) "The villain to your side is the hero to the other side."

[House Cambodia]

Hey Aegonzo, I like it - I like it a lot.

[OuttaOldtown]

Many years ago I read an interesting thought on "evil" in this story. To quickly summarize..there is the alien evil that is the others, its the one we do not understand and is the non-human evil we fear is set out to destroy all humanity. The evil that is equally dangerous & also aims to destroy humanity is the evil within mankind, represented primarily in the form of religious fanatics & the power hungry 'players' willing to do anything to gain more power..

[DireGhost]

What bothers me about the Others not necessarily being "good" but maybe misunderstood, is what's the endgame artistically for GRRM if it goes that route? I can't see any route that the story takes where the Others are something other than the real threat. They make a peace with humans? They help destroy the real threat, the CotF (who basically don't exist in the story other than in BR's cave)? The Northerners join them to fight Dany?

I just don't see how it works as a story with what we already have seen. What is the end result of them NOT being the "big bad"?

[[Deleted]]

19 minutes ago, DireGhost said:

What bothers me about the Others not necessarily being "good" but maybe misunderstood, is what's the endgame artistically for GRRM if it goes that route? I can't see any route that the story takes where the Others are something other than the real threat. They make a peace with humans? They help destroy the real threat, the CotF (who basically don't exist in the story other than in BR's cave)? The Northerners join them to fight Dany?

I just don't see how it works as a story with what we already have seen. What is the end result of them NOT being the "big bad"?

Let me ask you a question: How do you envision the endgame going? Jon rallies the North, defeats the Boltons, takes back Winterfell, and then.... Does... What, exactly? Marches north of the Wall? Sits and have some vindaloo while he waits for the Others to figure out how to bring down the Wall?

I think if the Others wanted to cross the Wall, they would have done it already. Why the delay? It's not cold enough yet? But in Hardhome, we saw the Others bring the cold with them.

Ok, so anyway, let's say the Others breach the Wall, start taking over Westeros, turning everyone into zombies, Jon's forces get pushed back, all seems lost... Then Dany comes swooping in with her dragons and saves the day? Come on, if that's what they are building up to, I will feel like I wasted my time on this story. That's been told hundreds of times already (hero shows up in the nick of time and has the perfect weapon to beat the bad guys), and I don't think GRRM would have bothered to write this story if he planned to end it on one of the biggest cliches of all time.

No, I have faith in GRRM to weave a more nuanced, complex plot than that where the reader can see both sides of the story and doesn't really know who to support. He hinted as much already with his comments about grey characters and heroes and villains being subjective.

[House Cambodia]

23 minutes ago, DireGhost said:

What bothers me about the Others not necessarily being "good" but maybe misunderstood, is what's the endgame artistically for GRRM if it goes that route? I can't see any route that the story takes where the Others are something other than the real threat. They make a peace with humans? They help destroy the real threat, the CotF (who basically don't exist in the story other than in BR's cave)? The Northerners join them to fight Dany?

I just don't see how it works as a story with what we already have seen. What is the end result of them NOT being the "big bad"?

I've made a thread entitled 'The Endgame'. Obviously you don't have to agree with any of my speculation, but for me it does 'work as a story with what we have already seen'.

The thread is here

The Endgame - a thought

 

This is the last paragraph

Quote

The end game - the Song of Ice and Fire. As the Dothraki, Ironborn, bloodthirsty slaves and Dany's dragons burn, rape, pillage and murder their way north, they won't be resisted until Winterfell, where they encounter the pitiful remnants of Queen of the North Sansa and Jon Snow's northern forces. And the Others. Originally created by the Children to repel the genocidal Andals of Essos, they have reawoken to again save civilization from the eastern peril, this time the mad megalomaniac dragon-queen and her evil hordes. Will the Final Battle be at Winterfell, the Wall or Trident? I cannot tell, but in the struggle of Ice vs Fire, Ice must prevail and Fire be vanquished. Then, mission completed, the Others will retire so that Sansa, Bran and Arya. Jon, the other messiah, TPTWP, the messiah of Ice, will have to self-sacrifice to rid the world of Dany and her dragons, in a bittersweet ending that will restore peace - and balance - to the world. We finish where we started 5000? 8000? years ago, with a 'Noah & family' remnant of humans to repopulate the world

 

Excellent post again, Gonzo.

[DireGhost]

2 minutes ago, Aegonzo The Great said:

Let me ask you a question: How do you envision the endgame going? Jon rallies the North, defeats the Boltons, takes back Winterfell, and then.... Does... What, exactly? Marches north of the Wall? Sits and have some vindaloo while he waits for the Others to figure out how to bring down the Wall?

I guess I am narrow-minded (my words) in thinking Jon and Dany will eventually join forces to defeat the Others. Although Dany's HotU vision of a battle against Ice forces at the Trident makes me wonder.

3 minutes ago, Aegonzo The Great said:

I think if the Others wanted to cross the Wall, they would have done it already. Why the delay? It's not cold enough yet? But in Hardhome, we saw the Others bring the cold with them.

The supposed "magic" involved with the making of the Wall? Sure it is speculation but that would be why in my opinion.

4 minutes ago, Aegonzo The Great said:

Ok, so anyway, let's say the Others breach the Wall, start taking over Westeros, turning everyone into zombies, Jon's forces get pushed back, all seems lost... Then Dany comes swooping in with her dragons and saves the day? Come on, if that's what they are building up to, I will feel like I wasted my time on this story. That's been told hundreds of times already (hero shows up in the nick of time and has the perfect weapon to beat the bad guys), and I don't think GRRM would have bothered to write this story if he planned to end it on one of the biggest cliches of all time.

I have to admit the way you put it would be kind of lame. I just can't see how Dany would end up being the "big bad" of the story. I am not a fan of Dany either.

[DireGhost]

Just now, House Cambodia said:

I've made a thread entitled 'The Endgame'. Obviously you don't have to agree with any of my speculation, but for me it does 'work as a story with what we have already seen'.

The thread is here

The Endgame - a thought

 

This is the last paragraph

 

Excellent post again, Gonzo.

So in your scenario, which I think would be an excellent story, why did the Others not awaken for the previous 300 years of Dragons? Why did they not awaken when Aegon the Conqueror swept through most of Westeros?

[[Deleted]]

4 minutes ago, House Cambodia said:

I've made a thread entitled 'The Endgame'. Obviously you don't have to agree with any of my speculation, but for me it does 'work as a story with what we have already seen'.

The thread is here

The Endgame - a thought

 

This is the last paragraph

 

Excellent post again, Gonzo.

Thanks, I like the way you're thinking as well. I've considered your theory before, but the only problem I have is: Where were the Others the last time the Targaryens invaded? Why didn't they do anything the whole time Westeros was being ruled by the Targaryens? It's the one thing that puzzles me about the Others: "Why now?" I like to think there is some connection between the Targaryens killing two Starks, like maybe the Starks had an agreement to always donate one of their sons to the Others and when the Mad King burned Brandon, that pact got broken (and Benjen tried to make things right by giving himself up), but I'm not entirely sure. It's one of the biggest questions driving me mad in this series.