GRRM talks about what it means title Ice and Fire

[OuttaOldtown]

19 minutes ago, Macgregor of the North said:

If we look at the pact Cregan was pushing to make happen, a union between Stark and Targaryen, which was named the pact of ice and fire, then those posters in those posts are technically right that Jon is both Ice and fire, assuming RLJ. 

And along with a small few other people, including Dany, Tyrion etc, yes, the story is all about him, as it is them.

So no, I can't see them posts with those posters stopping anytime soon.

Also the original Pact between the FM and CotF being made at the Isle of Faces, the same place Howland visited prior to the the events at the tourney. I can't see how anyone couldnt believe he didn't learn something there which has a connection to what occurred and the future as it relates to the child born of Rhagar and Lyanna., assuming R+L=J..

[Macgregor of the North]

3 hours ago, GravyFace said:

Jon isn't the balance, if that's who you think the answer is. Either the Others are ice or the Starks are ice, it can't be both. So which is the enemy, the Others or the Starks? Because if it's the Others, then Jon isn't the balance. He isn't part Other. 

I don't have the answers and I'm not presuming what Im saying will happen in the story. But going by what we have read on the histories such as Night's King and the high probability he was a Stark, and his connection to the Others with sacrifices and what not, it's actually not the craziest idea in the world to think the Others and the Kings of Winter actually have some kind of thousands year old connection. 

There has to be something there if I'm honest. I'm waiting before I go placing money on it but I strongly feel the Starks are intertwined with The Others in a very important way to the story somehow. 

I mean all it would take is for GRRM to say it's so and everyone would be right on board with it. Like I said though, he hasn't though so I'm not saying this is so. 

But if there is some kind of serious connection between the Starks and the Others, kind of like there is between Targaryens and Dragons, then the term Ice and fire, Others/Dragons Stark/Targaryen Jon/Dany makes a bit more sense. IMO.

 

[Aegon VII]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

What event are you referring to here?

Dany being picked up in the fighting pit.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not really. There are other legendary magical creatures in this world. Wyverns, manticores, direwolves, velociraptors, sphinxes, huge krakens, etc. Do you think they all have to die because they are a threat to humanity? They are not worse than dragons.

 So I say Dragons are categorically different than the other animals in the world, and you argue against it by mentioning these other super powerful creatures. Well, considering we haven't seen any of these animals except direwolves still extant, it seems to support that Dragons are in a next-level animal group with krakens, manticores, and wyverns that has no place in Planetos, while normal animals like lions, stags and non-dire wolves are in the lesser level. Again, categorically different. And yes, I don't think any of these next-level creatures will be alive at the end of the books.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But they did coexist with humanity for thousands of years. Without great problems, actually.

Umm, the one example we have of dragons coexisting for thousands of years ends in the worst slavery imaginable and the doom of Valaryia. That seems like a great problem to me.

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You are making a fool of yourself.

 It's good to look the fool from time to time, keeps one humble.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If Meraxes, the second largest dragon in the history of Westeros, can be killed in battle, then every dragon can. And Dany's dragons are a joke compared to her. Drogon is nearly killed in Daznak's Pit. And a bunch of angry townsfolk apparently killed five dragons with conventional weaponry during the Dance of the Dragons.

Again you mention Dany's arent full grown, as I've said this is irrelevant, the threat I'm speaking of comes from the potential power of full grown dragons but more accurately the respect they command. Everyone knows how devastating dragons can be, and they respect them as such. Dany's current power derives almost exclusively from this power, (see the 90/10 proportion I mentioned earlier). You say if the second largest dragon can die in battle, then every dragon can. This is irrelevant. That would be like a nation shooting a nuclear bomb out of mid air with a 1/million shot before it could activate, and then saying that nukes aren't a real threat, and every nuke can be defeated in battle. I don't think it's foolish for me to point out that the example of a dragon having a weakness that you provided only speaks further to their strength. It would be difficult for a present day military sniper to shoot the eye of a dragon in the heat of battle before the dragon could take them out, let alone a few guys using a scorpion, which has terrible dynamic aiming. Yeah, every dragon could die in battle from a scorpion bolt, the odds of this are insignificantly small.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You have to read more. Dragons are dangerous but they don't make you invincible. And neither are they.

Again you focus on the strength of the physical dragon, verses the power they give their riders in the eyes of the common people. It is this perception of power that is too great. The dragons only need to be strong enough to scare the shit out of the common people, which they are. Even so, a fully grown dragon is pretty close to invincible. Like I said, the chances of an eye shot from a scorpion are insignificant, especially now that people know their eyes are the weakness. Dany will take steps to destroy the scorpions and protect their eyes.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You should also read the actual story of the Conquest. Dragons were important back then but armies were, too. Harren the Black lost his kingdom and his life because he was a cruel tyrant as well as a fool. He exploited his subjects and they turned against him when the Targaryens came. And then he thought he would be save in some castle.

The Stormlands were conquered in a more conventional way and Dorne even defied the dragons and the armies. This is doable.

 Of course there were battles fought with armies and there were marriages made to unite the Dornish. But battles and marriages had been around since the beginning of time and they were never enough to unite the seven kingdoms. Dragons are categorically different than the other things in westeros, and when they arrived, they took over with relative ease. In those battles, would soldiers on the targ side be there fighting if the targs weren't riding dragons? I argue no.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is not appropriate because shadow-binding is a different magical tradition then fire magic. That is stated in the books. Just because I have two doctoral degrees doesn't mean everybody has, right?

 It is appropriate because I was simply giving examples of the perversion of the fire side. This whole argument comes down to whether the WW and Dragons are equal threats to humanity. I argue that they are. I see this as the typical good vs evil trope turned on its head. The trope being that these magical, beautiful Dragons are the good guys( or are the tools of the good side, as I know your stickler about agency), that will fight and defeat the dark scary others, the bad guys. In turning it on its head, GRRM has made both the good guys and the bad, dragons and ww, complex. Of course the WW are the obvious threat, but through the books, we will learn information that humanizes them and makes them less of 100% pure villain. In the same way, we will see that the dragons that we love to cheer for, actually have some drawbacks that make them a danger to us, and incompatible with our world.

 

So, I don't really understand why you're nitpicking between shadow binders and red priests, seems like its just distracting from my point. I understand they are different, but Melisandre is both, and given that she is by far the biggest Red God character we have, I used here as my example of the perversion of fire. If it makes you feel better, take out the shadow binding and were still left with the red priests burning children at the stake.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Robert definitely had more dragonlord blood than Quentyn. However, Quentyn wasn't killed by the dragon he tried to claim he was burned by the dragon he had forgotten about/ignored. He seemed to have success with Viserion but it was Rhaegal who killed him. You cannot claim two dragons at the same time according to dragonlore. Quentyn may even have been killed had he actually mounted Viserion down there because sitting on dragon's back doesn't protect you from another dragon's fire.

So your saying if Quentyn went down and there was only one dragon in the cage he would have been able to ride it? I would say he could not. Again you look only to the blood prerequisite. You assume there's not other factors in this equation, such as the personality of the person. And yes, I know quentyn has less blood, but your previous post mentioned how many of the other riders have less dragon blood than Robert. I mention Quentyn as a further evidence that it is not the simple equation of blood of the dragon = dragon rider.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, that is just the concept of a hereditary monarchy. The Starks, Arryns, Lannister, Arryns, etc. didn't hand down their crowns to some peasants or even their noble subjects. It passed down to their royal siblings, children, and grandchildren. This has nothing to do with dragons.

 There is a huge difference between hereditary monarchs with dragons vs without. There is nothing wrong with it when there are no dragons, but it is doomed to fail once dragons are introduced. Without dragons, the houses that do the best rise to the top, and their children benefit from their success. If those houses start to fail, they will be overtaken by more powerful other houses. In this way, the lineages that succeed do well, and those that fail do poorly. This is the way of the world and how it should be. Now let's introduce dragons. Dragons give their owners the illusion of absolute power. With this absolute power, the normal course of politics cannot take place. It does not matter how terrible the dragonlords were, since they had the dragons, no other people could overthrow them. The only solution the slaves of Valyria could find was death.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You do know that the Targaryens stayed in power even after the dragons all died, right?

 For a century and a half. That's not long at all. The threat I speak of takes generations and generations to become fully realized, as it was in Valaryia. So, Targs had had dragons for thousands of years, and within 200 years of them going extinct, they have already lost the throne. Seems to support my idea that dragons give the ruling family an unfair advantage. It is only now that the dragons are gone that the Targs were usurped.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

This is just nonsense.

I disagree. You may not be following it, but that doesn't make it nonsense.

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Slavery has nothing to do with dragons and you can have dragons and not be a slaver. You can even fight to abolish slavery everywhere (Daenerys).

Tell the Braavosi and Ghiscari that slavery has nothing to do with dragons. Dragons were used to enslave Essos, and now their being used to free the slaves of Essos. In both cases, it was the absolute power of the dragons that allowed the Valaryians and Dany to succeed. So I would say that slavery has something to do with dragons.

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea that slavery has to be reintroduced at some time in the future by some evil dragonrider is about as likely as the claim that the US is going to enslave the entire world because they control a lot of nuclear weapons. They could do that, of course, if they play it right. But they don't have to.

 

I'm not saying it will be reintroduced, I'm saying when evaluating dragons we have to examine potential threats down the road. Great parallel to nukes, because that's exactly what it is. The U.S. and other countries have agreed that nukes are too powerful, and are destroying all the nukes. They recognize that it is too great a power for countries to yield. Sure the U.S. will not drop bombs everywhere, but what about North Korea, what about other less developed countries. We are actively destroying all nukes in order to prevent them from getting in the wrong hands. Dragons are similarly, too great a power for man to yield, and must be destroyed because eventually we will get a Kim Jong Targaryan.

[Weirdo]

4 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Yeah so? The poem literally says that both fire and ice are destructive forces, not that one is better than the other.

Right, I'm just bringing it to the general discussion which is all guesswork anyway. But I think it's interesting that in Frost's poem, fire and ice represent two forces in the human heart, and it's the people under their influence that are the destructive force. Hate versus desire, or as they say on Wall Street, fear versus greed.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

5 hours ago, GravyFace said:

Jon isn't the balance, if that's who you think the answer is. Either the Others are ice or the Starks are ice, it can't be both. So which is the enemy, the Others or the Starks? Because if it's the Others, then Jon isn't the balance. He isn't part Other. 

The Starks have a connection with Ice. Heck even their sword is named Ice, the marriage between a Stark and a Targ was named *Pact of Ice and Fire* and Jon is exactly 50% Stark and 50% Targ. Now if you don't agree that is your choice, however it doesn't make you right and me wrong.

[BalerionTheCat]

As I read GRRM, and understand the story, KL is the place where people do their politics as usual, ignoring any news of a long term threat. While the Others and Daenrys, Ice and Fire, are the two impending menaces converging toward them. IIRC, Daenrys and the dothrakis were already presented as a menace for the 7K.

Of course GRRM would not say she is evil. And she is not, or not yet. But she is the tool, the champion of R'hllor. But what is R'hllor doing with Melisandre? Does he try to recruit Jon, the half Ice, half Fire, to the Fire side?

[the trees have eyes]

1 hour ago, Aegon VII said:

1) So I say Dragons are categorically different than the other animals in the world, and you argue against it by mentioning these other super powerful creatures. Well, considering we haven't seen any of these animals except direwolves still extant, it seems to support that Dragons are in a next-level animal group with krakens, manticores, and wyverns that has no place in Planetos, while normal animals like lions, stags and non-dire wolves are in the lesser level. Again, categorically different. And yes, I don't think any of these next-level creatures will be alive at the end of the books.

2) Umm, the one example we have of dragons coexisting for thousands of years ends in the worst slavery imaginable and the doom of Valaryia. That seems like a great problem to me.

3)  It is appropriate because I was simply giving examples of the perversion of the fire side. This whole argument comes down to whether the WW and Dragons are equal threats to humanity. I argue that they are. I see this as the typical good vs evil trope turned on its head. The trope being that these magical, beautiful Dragons are the good guys( or are the tools of the good side, as I know your stickler about agency), that will fight and defeat the dark scary others, the bad guys. In turning it on its head, GRRM has made both the good guys and the bad, dragons and ww, complex. Of course the WW are the obvious threat, but through the books, we will learn information that humanizes them and makes them less of 100% pure villain. In the same way, we will see that the dragons that we love to cheer for, actually have some drawbacks that make them a danger to us, and incompatible with our world.

4) So, I don't really understand why you're nitpicking between shadow binders and red priests, seems like its just distracting from my point. I understand they are different, but Melisandre is both, and given that she is by far the biggest Red God character we have, I used here as my example of the perversion of fire. If it makes you feel better, take out the shadow binding and were still left with the red priests burning children at the stake.

2) For a century and a half. That's not long at all. The threat I speak of takes generations and generations to become fully realized, as it was in Valaryia. So, Targs had had dragons for thousands of years, and within 200 years of them going extinct, they have already lost the throne. Seems to support my idea that dragons give the ruling family an unfair advantage. It is only now that the dragons are gone that the Targs were usurped.

2) Tell the Braavosi and Ghiscari that slavery has nothing to do with dragons. Dragons were used to enslave Essos, and now their being used to free the slaves of Essos. In both cases, it was the absolute power of the dragons that allowed the Valaryians and Dany to succeed. So I would say that slavery has something to do with dragons.

2) I'm not saying it will be reintroduced, I'm saying when evaluating dragons we have to examine potential threats down the road. Great parallel to nukes, because that's exactly what it is. The U.S. and other countries have agreed that nukes are too powerful, and are destroying all the nukes. They recognize that it is too great a power for countries to yield. Sure the U.S. will not drop bombs everywhere, but what about North Korea, what about other less developed countries. We are actively destroying all nukes in order to prevent them from getting in the wrong hands. Dragons are similarly, too great a power for man to yield, and must be destroyed because eventually we will get a Kim Jong Targaryan.

1) It seems you think dragons shouldn't be allowed to exist because of the potential misuse of them by man, notwithstanding whether they are magical creations in some sense rather than powerful animals.

That's a line of reasoning you are entitled to take for sure but it seems a pretty bleak one.  Perhaps the war elephants of the Golden company give them an advantage on the battlefield so all elephants should be exterminated too in case the Golden Company morph into a conquering empire somewhere down the line?  Or what about heavy cavalry?

2) Dragons =/= slavery mate.  The Targaryens ruled in Westeros for 300 years without any interest in or attempt to introduce slavery and the Targ kings seem really no different to any other kind of kings, some being bad some being good, despite having dragons.  Dragons don't make for evil slaving dictatorships as Slaver's Bay and the Ghiscari so neatly show us in this series: people do.  Not to mention the one person in the world with dragons is not big on slavery.

3) The thing with this ics vs fire dichotomy is the Others and the wights have, in conjunction with the story of the Long Night, been presented as a threat to the human species, an extinction level event. The dragons on the other hand are simply large and powerful animals, possibly magical in some sense, to be feared for sure, but a species with which humanity has coexisted for hundreds or thousands of years, even harnessing the dragons and using them for their own purposes.  Man being man some of those purposes are not good, far from it, but the idea of equating the dragons with the Others/wights as equal threats to either Westeros or humanity just doesn't make sense with everything we have been shown in the series.

4) The other red priest we see a lot of is Thoros of Myr and there is no evidence he was a shadowbinder, or even very religious for that matter!  Whether we like it or not religions in pre-Andal Westeros and in Essos seem to involve human sacrifice - the sacrifices to the Old Gods before the weirwoods, the drowning sacrifices Victarion or Aeron give to the Drowned God, or the burnings offered to the Lord of Light.  There is no reason to think that "Fire" or the Red Priests are somehow an equal danger to that of The Others rather than a part of the tapestry of religious beliefs in Planetos.

[Aegon VII]

54 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

1) It seems you think dragons shouldn't be allowed to exist because of the potential misuse of them by man, notwithstanding whether they are magical creations in some sense rather than powerful animals.

It might be splitting hairs but I would phrase it as they can't coexist with humans, versus shouldn't be allowed to exist. Same with the others. And I believe that in ASOIAF dragons are more than just powerful animals, they are the physical manifestation of ultimate power.

54 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

That's a line of reasoning you are entitled to take for sure but it seems a pretty bleak one.  Perhaps the war elephants of the Golden company give them an advantage on the battlefield so all elephants should be exterminated too in case the Golden Company morph into a conquering empire somewhere down the line?  Or what about heavy cavalry?

I think this goes back to whether or not Dragons are categorically different than the other extant animals in the world. Elephants, heavy cavalry, fighter pilots, etc are all powerful weapons, but they are each an incremental advancement over other weapons/ troops/ animals available at the time. Dragons, however, are leagues better than anything else in the world. When reviewing Dany's rise to power, she's pretty much in cheat mode she takes over so easily. Her Khalasar would not have followed her after Drogo died without the dragons hatching, Qarth and Astapor would not have given her the time of day. Dragons are the golden gun of Planetos and they are categorically different from elephants or heavy cavalry.

54 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

2) Dragons =/= slavery mate.  The Targaryens ruled in Westeros for 300 years without any interest in or attempt to introduce slavery and the Targ kings seem really no different to any other kind of kings, some being bad some being good, despite having dragons.  Dragons don't make for evil slaving dictatorships as Slaver's Bay and the Ghiscari so neatly show us in this series: people do.  Not to mention the one person in the world with dragons is not big on slavery.

I think a lot of this discussion has been directed in a certain way so I would like to take a step back and say I am not equating dragons with slavery. I am equating dragons with absolute power. In old Valaryia, this absolute power was used to enslave. In present day, Dany is using this absolute power to end slavery.  So while I use the dragonlord, their slaves, and the FM as examples of what happens when Dragons coexist with humans, I am not saying Dragons will inevitably lead to slavery. I am saying that dragons inevitably lead to their masters doing whatever the hell they want, with zero counter measures or balances. So far we saw this manifest itself in the slavery of old Valaryia, but it could just as easily have been a ruler burning every single person in the kingdom alive. In a system where absolute power gets handed down by lineage, eventually someone is going to mess it all up.

54 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

3) The thing with this ics vs fire dichotomy is the Others and the wights have, in conjunction with the story of the Long Night, been presented as a threat to the human species, an extinction level event. The dragons on the other hand are simply large and powerful animals, possibly magical in some sense, to be feared for sure, but a species with which humanity has coexisted for hundreds or thousands of years, even harnessing the dragons and using them for their own purposes.  Man being man some of those purposes are not good, far from it, but the idea of equating the dragons with the Others/wights as equal threats to either Westeros or humanity just doesn't make sense with everything we have been shown in the series.

 In equating the ice and fire threats, I think we need to recognize that Ice is the obvious threat, and fire the subtle. As I stated before, I do believe GRRM is playing with the good vs evil trope found in most fantasy. To do this he needs to set up the beautiful good guys in white (dany and her dragons) along with the ugly bad guys in black (the others). So of course it is going to be easy to see the threat of the others as that is the trope, and more difficult to see their humanity and redeeming qualities. In the same way, It's easy to see the dragons in a positive light as the assumed saviors (under dany), while it takes closer scrutiny to see the threat that absolute power has in the hands of men. So while you say it doesn't make sense given what we've been shown, I say that a lot of what we've been shown is the good vs evil trope that GRRM is now bucking against.

54 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

4) The other red priest we see a lot of is Thoros of Myr and there is no evidence he was a shadowbinder, or even very religious for that matter!  Whether we like it or not religions in pre-Andal Westeros and in Essos seem to involve human sacrifice - the sacrifices to the Old Gods before the weirwoods, the drowning sacrifices Victarion or Aeron give to the Drowned God, or the burnings offered to the Lord of Light.  There is no reason to think that "Fire" or the Red Priests are somehow an equal danger to that of The Others rather than a part of the tapestry of religious beliefs in Planetos.

I'd say this is another point where the discussion has drifted away from my main point. I am not equating the red priests with the others, simply saying that they use the fire element in a bad way to their own ends. I was trying to show that both ice and fire have facets that are not good. Both Ice and Fire can have flaws, and can have virtues. This supports the idea that it's not the elements themselves that are good or bad, it is how they are used by people. There has to be balance between these two opposing forces.

[Little Scribe of Naath]

5 hours ago, Weirdo said:

Right, I'm just bringing it to the general discussion which is all guesswork anyway. But I think it's interesting that in Frost's poem, fire and ice represent two forces in the human heart, and it's the people under their influence that are the destructive force. Hate versus desire, or as they say on Wall Street, fear versus greed.

That's a nice interpretation of the title too, considering GRRM loves writing about the human heart in conflict with itself.

1 hour ago, Aegon VII said:

I am not equating the red priests with the others, simply saying that they use the fire element in a bad way to their own ends. I was trying to show that both ice and fire have facets that are not good. Both Ice and Fire can have flaws, and can have virtues. This supports the idea that it's not the elements themselves that are good or bad, it is how they are used by people. There has to be balance between these two opposing forces.

This.

[GravyFace]

9 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Yeah so? The poem literally says that both fire and ice are destructive forces, not that one is better than the other.

Yet the poem likens fire with desire, and ice with hate. George likens fire with passion and love, while ice is revenge and cold inhumanity. 

[Little Scribe of Naath]

7 minutes ago, GravyFace said:

Yet the poem likens fire with desire, and ice with hate. George likens fire with passion and love, while ice is revenge and cold inhumanity. 

From Beric Dondarrion:

 

“Fire consumes,” Lord Beric stood behind them, and there was something in his voice that silenced Thoros at once. “it consumes, and when it is done there is nothing left. Nothing.”

Aemon Targaryen:

"Fire consumes, but cold preserves"

This is not to say fire is evil and ice is good, but to counter your idea. Ice can be beneficial too, while fire destructive.

[Lord Varys]

8 hours ago, Protagoras said:

Does this mean that we finally will see the end of all those post with posters claiming Jon to be both ice and fire, that the story is all about him and in general paint him as some kind of second coming of christ?

Not a moment too late in that case.

Not a chance.

Nobody denies that Jon Snow also sort of embodies 'ice' and 'fire' on a superficial level. But so what? The true 'magical ice' are the Others and the true 'magical fire' are the dragons (and to a lesser degree, of course, Melisandre and perhaps even other red priests and 'fire wights'). Magical ice could also be 'cold creatures' like, perhaps, Ser Robert Strong.

But the important of the symbolic part of this is how ice and fire as metaphors affect the human psyche. Not only the Starks and Targaryens are icy or fiery, people in general are. Or at least are supposed to be in this story.

The fight humanity vs. Others could easily be described as a conflict between warmth and cold, between fire and ice. Assuming we'll get not only two books but three or more I'd not be surprised if the last books was actually named 'A Song of Ice and Fire', then being a direct reference to the final battle/war against the Others.

@Aegon VII

Lets cut this short. You think the dragons are bad, I think that is an overly simplistic and not very good interpretation of the series. In fact, it is a view that I think you cannot even draw from the series because it isn't there.

That said, it may very well be that the dragons do not survive the series. But that wouldn't prove your point. They can die for a lot of different reasons just as many other people can die for a number of reasons. People who are actually powerful.

Absolute power isn't necessarily a bad thing in this series, either. Bran might become very powerful - perhaps even literally omnipresent and omniscient during the course of the series. Is that going to be a reason to kill him? It would in your mindset (I don't think Bran is going to die in the story). Things were actually be pretty good during the days of the more absolutist and powerful Targaryen kings. The Conqueror, the Old King, and Viserys I gave the Realm and their people peace and plenty. And even during the madder and crueler kings (with and without dragons) only a fraction of the privileged elite (i.e. the aristocracy) suffered injustice. Neither Maegor the Cruel nor Aegon the Unworthy or the Mad King declared war on their peasants. The smallfolk profited from the reign of those absolutist kings as can be seen by such reforms as the Rule of Six, the abolishment of the First Night, and the reforms instigated by Aegon V.

If absolute power embodied by the dragons and their riders was 'evil' then one would actually expect to find people stating that or at least giving us hints that this was so. But there is no hint that the Targaryen rule of Westeros was that bad.

As to Quentyn: I say that Quentyn didn't fail to claim/mount Viserion. He was about to succeed when Rhaegal intervened and killed him. That is no proof that Quentyn had not sufficient dragonlord blood to become a dragonrider. He was killed by a dragon he wasn't trying to mount.

[GravyFace]

1 hour ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

From Beric Dondarrion:

 

“Fire consumes,” Lord Beric stood behind them, and there was something in his voice that silenced Thoros at once. “it consumes, and when it is done there is nothing left. Nothing.”

Aemon Targaryen:

"Fire consumes, but cold preserves"

This is not to say fire is evil and ice is good, but to counter your idea. Ice can be beneficial too, while fire destructive.

Preserves what though? Fire is consuming, like passion is or love. Ice is hate and inhumanity and revenge, so if it's preserving those things, then it's certainly not beneficial. Could be why the Others have been so patient, their hate and desire for revenge has been preserved for thousands of years until the moment is right.

[the trees have eyes]

3 hours ago, Aegon VII said:

1) It might be splitting hairs but I would phrase it as they can't coexist with humans, versus shouldn't be allowed to exist. Same with the others. And I believe that in ASOIAF dragons are more than just powerful animals, they are the physical manifestation of ultimate power.

I think this goes back to whether or not Dragons are categorically different than the other extant animals in the world. Elephants, heavy cavalry, fighter pilots, etc are all powerful weapons, but they are each an incremental advancement over other weapons/ troops/ animals available at the time. Dragons, however, are leagues better than anything else in the world. When reviewing Dany's rise to power, she's pretty much in cheat mode she takes over so easily. Her Khalasar would not have followed her after Drogo died without the dragons hatching, Qarth and Astapor would not have given her the time of day. Dragons are the golden gun of Planetos and they are categorically different from elephants or heavy cavalry.

2) I think a lot of this discussion has been directed in a certain way so I would like to take a step back and say I am not equating dragons with slavery. I am equating dragons with absolute power. In old Valaryia, this absolute power was used to enslave. In present day, Dany is using this absolute power to end slavery.  So while I use the dragonlord, their slaves, and the FM as examples of what happens when Dragons coexist with humans, I am not saying Dragons will inevitably lead to slavery. I am saying that dragons inevitably lead to their masters doing whatever the hell they want, with zero counter measures or balances. So far we saw this manifest itself in the slavery of old Valaryia, but it could just as easily have been a ruler burning every single person in the kingdom alive. In a system where absolute power gets handed down by lineage, eventually someone is going to mess it all up.

3) In equating the ice and fire threats, I think we need to recognize that Ice is the obvious threat, and fire the subtle. As I stated before, I do believe GRRM is playing with the good vs evil trope found in most fantasy. To do this he needs to set up the beautiful good guys in white (dany and her dragons) along with the ugly bad guys in black (the others). So of course it is going to be easy to see the threat of the others as that is the trope, and more difficult to see their humanity and redeeming qualities. In the same way, It's easy to see the dragons in a positive light as the assumed saviors (under dany), while it takes closer scrutiny to see the threat that absolute power has in the hands of men. So while you say it doesn't make sense given what we've been shown, I say that a lot of what we've been shown is the good vs evil trope that GRRM is now bucking against.

4) I'd say this is another point where the discussion has drifted away from my main point. I am not equating the red priests with the others, simply saying that they use the fire element in a bad way to their own ends. I was trying to show that both ice and fire have facets that are not good. Both Ice and Fire can have flaws, and can have virtues. This supports the idea that it's not the elements themselves that are good or bad, it is how they are used by people. There has to be balance between these two opposing forces.

1) I understand what you are saying but the obvious rejoinder is that the Targaryens had dragons for part of their 300 year reign and the Valyrians had dragons for hundreds of years.  This does not show that people and dragons cannot coexist, quite the opposite.  And it really doesn't seem an equal threat to the way the genocidal ice zombie apocalypse destroys any life it gets its hands on and then the Others raise the creatures, whether man, horse or bear as mindless slaves to inflict more carnage. 

Also  be careful about seeing dragons as a metaphor for nukes as I think that skews your thinking somewhat as you (like most people) likely have strong views on nuclear weapons and you end up making a qualitative moral judgment based on our world rather than what really happens in Planetos (they aren't WMD with no other purpose than to destroy civilizations at a stroke).  When you get down to it the dragons, whether magical in some sense or not, are living creatures that feel pain and pleasure and they eat, sleep and squabble like other living creatures do.  The Others exterminate all living things and then raise the undead.  The two are not equal threats and I'll take the living creatures that can be tamed or tolerated over the legions of the undead any day.

2) Essentially this is a futile approach though.  The Dothraki needed no dragons to wreck any civiization in Essos they wanted to and they need no dragons to slaughter the Lhazareen or exact their tribute from the Free Cities.  Nor do any of the militaristic states or societies like the Ironborn or the vile stew that is Slaver's Bay.  The issue is not with the dragons but with human nature: good luck changing that.  And it's worth remembering that Valyria dominated southern Essos but no more than that and that the Targaryens never took a step outside Westeros so the impact of the dragons on human history and civilization may not be as great as you might think.  If the maesters really did kill the Targaryen dragons as Marwyn stated to Sam it would be interesting to know why.  Was it because dragons were the threat you outline or because they seem to have enabled magic to function?  Which was really their target?  I'm betting on magic.

3) This is a popular line of reasoning: that the two extremes are as bad as each other though we just haven't seen how "bad" fire is yet; and that a middle ground has to be achieved and balance restored for the world to prosper.  However we simply haven't seen any indications, however subtle, that fire is really a threat to humanity or the planet.  GRRM is on the record as saying that the battle of good vs evil takes place in the human heart rather than between a Dark Lord and an Army of sainted heroes and to that end his human characters are very realistic, even compelling, but how he turns merciless undead zombies and their masters into something other than dangerous and loathsome adversries is going to be a challenge to credulity.  Honestly the dragon to me are tools not saviours: they can be used or misused but they are not part of some perverted fire threat that is as bad as the ice zombies.  They are also a useful confirmation of Dany's identity which may be the real reason GRRM gave them to her.  If fire is "bad" GRRM is leaving it awfully late in the day to reveal that one of the major religions of the world is somehow a problem.  I'm not convinced at all that is where he wants to go with this.

4) I would agree with that.  Ice and Fire magic to the extent that we have seen it is a (supernatural) force of nature that can be harnessed by whoever is able to for whatever end they have in mind.  This is actually my objection to your stance on the dragons after all, that although people "may" find ways to misuse them this doesn't make them intrinsically bad or remove their right to exist.  The series may well end with the death of magic - the exile / end of the Others and the death of the dragons.  That seems the most likely ending and the most obvious way to restore balance but I wouldn't bet against a conflict with the Others in which the dragons have a part to play being the end game.  I would bet against the view some peole have that Westeros faces twin threats of equal magnitude and Dany's "invasion" of Dothraki screamers and terrifying dragons will be the anvil to the Others' hammer.

[Lord Varys]

36 minutes ago, GravyFace said:

Preserves what though? Fire is consuming, like passion is or love. Ice is hate and inhumanity and revenge, so if it's preserving those things, then it's certainly not beneficial. Could be why the Others have been so patient, their hate and desire for revenge has been preserved for thousands of years until the moment is right.

 

4 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

2) Essentially this is a futile approach though.  The Dothraki needed no dragons to wreck any civiization in Essos they wanted to and they need no dragons to slaughter the Lhazareen or exact their tribute from the Free Cities.  Nor do any of the miltaristic states or societies like the Ironborn or the vile stew that is Slaver's Bay.  The issue is not with the dragons but with human nature: good luck changing that.  And it's worth remembering that Valyria dominated southern Essos but no more than that and that the Targaryens never took a step outside Westeros so the impact of the dragons on human history and civilization may not be as great as you might think.  If the maesters really did kill the Targaryen dragons as Marwyn stated to Sam it would be interesting to know why.  Was it because dragons were the threat you outline or because they seem to have enabled magic to function?  Which was really their target?  I'm betting on magic.

Well, well, we can be in the same team after all.

My guess is the Dance sort of triggered the idea in the Citadel community - especially in Grand Maester Munkun who was the most influential man at court in the last year of the Regency during the minority of Aegon III - to remove the dragons from the board to prevent another such catastrophe as the Dance. Prior to the Dance the dragons grew and multiplied without any signs of sickness especially during the reign of Viserys I.

The anti-magic stance of the Citadel has to be somewhat complicated. In the days in which magic still worked it wouldn't have made any sense to ban or oppose it. The maesters would have studied it in detail instead. But once it weakened and became the field of charlatans and cranks they might have decided to push it into obscurity and replace it with 'real science'.

Another part could have been the fact that magic was mostly the field of 'special/magical people' and that sort of vexed the more egalitarian maesters. It is not that magic is completely forbidden in the Citadel. Just not a very popular field of study.

4 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

4) I would agree with that.  Ice and Fire magic to the extent that we have seen it is a (supernatural) force of nature that can be harnessed by whoever is able to for wahtever end they have in mind.  This is actually my objection to your stance on the dragons after all, that although people "may" find ways to misuse them this doesn't make them intrinsically bad or remove their right to exist.  The series may well end with the death of magic - the exile / end of the Others and the death of the dragons.  That seems the most likely ending and the most obvious way to restore balance but I wouldn't bet against a conflict with the Others in which the dragons have a part to play being the end game.  I would bet against the view some peole have that Westeros faces twin threats of equal magnitude and Dany's "invasion" of Dothraki screamers and terrifying dragons will be the anvil to the Others' hammer.

I doubt we'll see the end of magic. That would mean the death of Bran as well, along with all the other Stark children (who happen to be skinchangers and possibly, in Arya's and Bran's case, much more than that when the series ends). One or even two of the dragons might die but I don't see all of them dying because a dragon would be a nice tool/means to indicate that the Realm is united again and whoever is in charge then is also able to rebuild the Realm. Without a dragon whoever ends up in charge of things might not survive all that long nor be able to command the necessary authority to keep the Realm together.

Any scenario in which both Dany/the dragons and the Others are evil would basically make whoever is then controlling the Iron Throne the good guys. But Tommen, Cersei, Euron, Aegon, Stannis, etc. aren't the main characters nor the main heroes.

52 minutes ago, GravyFace said:

Preserves what though? Fire is consuming, like passion is or love. Ice is hate and inhumanity and revenge, so if it's preserving those things, then it's certainly not beneficial. Could be why the Others have been so patient, their hate and desire for revenge has been preserved for thousands of years until the moment is right.

It definitely preserves the wights. And that's not a good thing. I think the ice magic at the core of the creation of the Others (and also the wights) might be some sort of twisted immortality/preservation spell dialed down to unnatural/devastating degrees. Whatever issues the Others have with humanity might not be handed down through the generations like folklore or traditions but by memory. Whoever leads or directs the Others might right now be the same person/entity who originally directed the Others during the Long Night. And if that's the case then the motivation might have been preserved as completely and pure as that being itself. If you can wait thousands of years then you are not likely to let a thing go nor are is unlikely that you enjoy a thing not very much.

[Little Scribe of Naath]

1 hour ago, GravyFace said:

Preserves what though? Fire is consuming, like passion is or love. Ice is hate and inhumanity and revenge, so if it's preserving those things, then it's certainly not beneficial. Could be why the Others have been so patient, their hate and desire for revenge has been preserved for thousands of years until the moment is right.

Fire is also destructive (forest fires?), and a terribly painful way to die (see the disgust of Asha and Jon at Melisandre's burnings. Not to mention that dragonfire wrecked the castle Harrenhal).

Ice is hate and cold revenge yes, like the Northeners' calculated revenge to bring down the horrific Boltons in Winterfell. Ice and the cold weather I presume is also what is going to preserve any grains which people need for winter (how else do you think they survive year-long winters?)

Ice cells are where Jon Snow's body might be preserved before Melisandre resurrects him with fire. Basically, again, showing the importance of both elements.

[Aegon VII]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

@Aegon VII

Lets cut this short.

Too late for that mate!

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

You think the dragons are bad,

This could not be further from the truth. My whole argument is that mystical manifestations of the two elements, ww and dragons, are both threats to humanity in their own way. I view GRRM as first presenting the story as the typical good vs evil story of most fantasy, with the ww being the bad, and the dragons being the good. Upon further examination, however, we find that both ww and dragons are neither objectively good nor bad. To say I view dragons as bad would be the equivalent as saying I view the others as good, both of which are incorrect.

 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I think that is an overly simplistic and not very good interpretation of the series. In fact, it is a view that I think you cannot even draw from the series because it isn't there.

I completely agree, viewing the dragons as bad is an indefensible position. They are animals, they are no more evil than cows, wolves, or snakes etc. But that's not the position I'm trying to defend whatsoever. I am saying there is no room for the absolute power that is dragons to continue existing in the world of men. Their power tips the scales in the favor of their owners so much it disrupts the natural economy of the world.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Absolute power isn't necessarily a bad thing in this series, either. Bran might become very powerful - perhaps even literally omnipresent and omniscient during the course of the series. Is that going to be a reason to kill him? It would in your mindset (I don't think Bran is going to die in the story). Things were actually be pretty good during the days of the more absolutist and powerful Targaryen kings. The Conqueror, the Old King, and Viserys I gave the Realm and their people peace and plenty. And even during the madder and crueler kings (with and without dragons) only a fraction of the privileged elite (i.e. the aristocracy) suffered injustice. Neither Maegor the Cruel nor Aegon the Unworthy or the Mad King declared war on their peasants. The smallfolk profited from the reign of those absolutist kings as can be seen by such reforms as the Rule of Six, the abolishment of the First Night, and the reforms instigated by Aegon V.

I disagree, absolute power is a bad thing. The rulers of a society have a social contract with those they rule. Absolute power gives the rulers all the leverage in this contract. Without dragons there are always checks and balances to a government, even a monarchy or a slave state. With Dragons, however, these checks are gone and instead the ruler has complete control, as no one can oppose the dragon. This is a threat to humanity. And yes, over the course of hundreds of years we are going to have examples of the Targs as both great rulers and terrible like the ones you mentioned, that misses the point. Of course a contested crown creates more unstable times than an a ruler in an uncontested position. But an uncontested position is not the same as an incontestable position, which is what I view as the threat. And yes, Bran might become super powerful, but he also was thrown from a tower and paralyzed. Again, balance in all things. Dragons do not have this balance.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If absolute power embodied by the dragons and their riders was 'evil' then one would actually expect to find people stating that or at least giving us hints that this was so. But there is no hint that the Targaryen rule of Westeros was that bad.

Because it was for a short time and the dragons began to fade away and diminish in size and number. If dragons were still alive when the mad king wanted to burn Kings Landing I have to think he would have succeeded. Lets look at Essos which does have a long track record with Dragons. The Braavosi and Ghiscari cultures arguably have the most experience with dragons of any people in the story, and they do say it was that bad under dragons. So I would say there's not only hints, our most primary sources on dragons preach exactly that. Sure it wasn't in westeros, but when talking about a potential threat, which is what I view dragons as, it can take thousands of years for the threat to manifest itself, which I beleive we saw in the Doom of Valaryia.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

As to Quentyn: I say that Quentyn didn't fail to claim/mount Viserion. He was about to succeed when Rhaegal intervened and killed him. That is no proof that Quentyn had not sufficient dragonlord blood to become a dragonrider. He was killed by a dragon he wasn't trying to mount.

Similar to Robert riding one, were both just speculating here concerning whether they would or would not succeed, so I'm happy to leave it here.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

1) I understand what you are saying but the obvious rejoinder is that the Targaryens had dragons for part of their 300 year reign and the Valyrians had dragons for hundreds of years.  This does not show that people and dragons cannot coexist, quite the opposite.

As I mentioned to Lord Varys, I think the Westeros rule while dragons were still alive is too short a time period to expect the threat to manifest itself, so I will instead focus on Essos. I argue that dragons are what enabled the dragonlords to conquer the Braavosi and Ghiscari. This created an unbalanced society in which the ruled had no power in relation to their rulers. To such an extent they preferred death per the FM origin story. This is categorically different than other rulers in planetos, because other rulers who did not have dragons, can be overthrown if they start treating their subjects too poorly. I view the dragonlords and slaves of old valaryia as the manifestation of the dragon threat, and the FM as societies reaction to it. I say dragons can't coexist with humans, and with the doom of Valaryia we see just that.

 

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

  And it really doesn't seem an equal threat to the way the genocidal ice zombie apocalypse destroys any life it gets its hands on and then the Others raise the creatures, whether man, horse or bear as mindless slaves to inflict more carnage. 

But their not supposed to seem to be equal threats (on the surface). It's supposed to seem like the stereotypical trope, dragons good, ww bad. It's only once we learn more that we will be able to recognize the two threats for what they truly are. A lot of this information has not yet been given to us, a lot of it has. The others are a creature just like any other, is it bad for them to want to kill all other forms of life. The obvious answer is yes but I'm not quite so sure. In many ways, we could view humans as the others of the real world. When we come to a place we have little regard to the life around us and instead are completely self serving, as most animals are. Others, humans, dragons, wolves, were all just genetic material fighting for our place in this world. To the others, we might be the villain.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

Also  be careful about seeing dragons as a metaphor for nukes as I think that skews your thinking somewhat as you (like most people) likely have strong views on nuclear weapons and you end up making a qualitative moral judgment based on our world rather than what really happens in Planetos (they aren't WMD with no other purpose than to destroy civilizations at a stroke).  When you get down to it the dragons, whether magical in some sense or not, are living creatures that feel pain and pleasure and they eat, sleep and squabble like other living creatures do.  The Others exterminate all living things and then raise the undead.  The two are not equal threats and I'll take the living creatures that can be tamed or tolerated over the legions of the undead any day.

Good point about the nukes, but I do find the parallels between the two warrant the comparison. Concerning your last sentence, I think most poeple would agree with it at first blush, but again lets consider the FM. They were presented with this exact choice, live in a world with dragons, living creatures that can be tamed, or die, which is what would happen if others took over.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

2) Essentially this is a futile approach though.  The Dothraki needed no dragons to wreck any civiization in Essos they wanted to and they need no dragons to slaughter the Lhazareen or exact their tribute from the Free Cities.  Nor do any of the militaristic states or societies like the Ironborn or the vile stew that is Slaver's Bay.  The issue is not with the dragons but with human nature: good luck changing that.  And it's worth remembering that Valyria dominated southern Essos but no more than that and that the Targaryens never took a step outside Westeros so the impact of the dragons on human history and civilization may not be as great as you might think.  If the maesters really did kill the Targaryen dragons as Marwyn stated to Sam it would be interesting to know why.  Was it because dragons were the threat you outline or because they seem to have enabled magic to function?  Which was really their target?  I'm betting on magic.

Again, categorically different. The Dothraki, Ironborn, etc all have checks and balances. Sure there are societies of badass warriors, but their power is not absolute. The free cities tolerate Dothraki just like Westeros tolerates the Ironborn. Both can and have been defeated. And I had forgotten about he Maesters, but that is one more group supporting the "no place in this world for dragons" view.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

3) This is a popular line of reasoning: that the two extremes are as bad as each other though we just haven't seen how "bad" fire is yet; and that a middle ground has to be achieved and balance restored for the world to prosper. 

Good summation, I completely agree with this statement

 

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

However we simply haven't seen any indications, however subtle, that fire is really a threat to humanity or the planet. 

 This is where I disagree. I think Dany's conquest, Aegon's Conquest, the Doom of Valaryia, the FM, and the Braavosi view of dragons all speak to the threat of unrestricted power passed down through birth right.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

GRRM is on the record as saying that the battle of good vs evil takes place in the human heart rather than between a Dark Lord and an Army of sainted heroes and to that end his human characters are very realistic, even compelling, but how he turns merciless undead zombies and their masters into something other than dangerous and loathsome adversries is going to be a challenge to credulity. 

It may be difficult but I believe GRRM will be able to do it while remaining credible. If the others are a sentient race who's survival depends on the destruction of other races, is it evil for them to kill all the other races? I argue that it is not, it is simply survival.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

Honestly the dragon to me are tools not saviours: they can be used or misused but they are not part of some perverted fire threat that is as bad as the ice zombies. 

I too view them as tools, used to their masters will. However, I say they are such a powerful tool that they represent a threat to us. I also don't view them as perverted, I view the red priests and followers of Rhollor as the perverts. Dragons are the embodiment of fire, whereas the perversion of fire comes from people using it incorrectly, like Mel.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

They are also a useful confirmation of Dany's identity which may be the real reason GRRM gave them to her.  If fire is "bad" GRRM is leaving it awfully late in the day to reveal that one of the major religions of the world is somehow a problem.  I'm not convinced at all that is where he wants to go with this.

 Fire is not bad per se, just the way the red priests use or rather misuse it. I also believe GRRM has provided evidence that the red faith is a problem. The biggest piece of evidence being they burn people alive. Others have argued that burning someone alive is no more evil than other forms of execution, but I strongly disagree. Humans are instinctively repulsed and horrified by the idea of burning someone alive. Any faith that preaches burning sacrifices alive cannot come from a good or moral source IMO.

Also we have Stannis and Mel being a direct parallel to the nights king. I think this is further evidence that its neither ice nor fire that's the problem, both can be misused.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

4) I would agree with that.  Ice and Fire magic to the extent that we have seen it is a (supernatural) force of nature that can be harnessed by whoever is able to for whatever end they have in mind.  This is actually my objection to your stance on the dragons after all, that although people "may" find ways to misuse them this doesn't make them intrinsically bad or remove their right to exist.

I sincerely don't view dragons as intrinsically bad, like you said they are a tool, a force of nature that can be harnessed. The problem is that the magnitude of this force of nature disrupts all the other forces of nature.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

  The series may well end with the death of magic - the exile / end of the Others and the death of the dragons.  That seems the most likely ending and the most obvious way to restore balance but I wouldn't bet against a conflict with the Others in which the dragons have a part to play being the end game.  I would bet against the view some peole have that Westeros faces twin threats of equal magnitude and Dany's "invasion" of Dothraki screamers and terrifying dragons will be the anvil to the Others' hammer.

I think I agree with everything you've said here. The fire threat is not simply Dany invading with her armies and dragons, though that's how Robert and most of Westeros view it in the beginning of GoT. I think she will conquer Westeros pretty easily without much struggle. I think this because she has the dragons, and I view the dragons as absolute power. So I don't think its Westeros in the middle with Others invading from above and Dany from below. Dany is a good person and will recognize the the real threat is the others and focus on defending the realm rather than punishing Westeros. I think at the end though, she will realize that the Dragons cannot continue to exist, as she can not guarantee how they will be used after her death. She might even kill one herself.

[Protagoras]

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not a chance.

 

 

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Fire is also destructive (forest fires?), and a terribly painful way to die (see the disgust of Asha and Jon at Melisandre's burnings. Not to mention that dragonfire wrecked the castle Harrenhal).

Ice is hate and cold revenge yes, like the Northeners' calculated revenge to bring down the horrific Boltons in Winterfell. Ice and the cold weather I presume is also what is going to preserve any grains which people need for winter (how else do you think they survive year-long winters?)

Ice cells are where Jon Snow's body might be preserved before Melisandre resurrects him with fire. Basically, again, showing the importance of both elements.

In general ice lacks a positive quality, though. Cold-blooded revenge is not a positive trait, and cold that preserves the food in winter is the very same cold that kills people. There would be no need to preserve food if there was no winter, right?

And while it is sort of satisfying to read about the Manderlys and other taking their revenge this is a petty and stupid revenge for people who see the bigger picture. The Frey and Bolton may later sorely missed when the Others attack. Not to mention that the Others themselves might also be driven by the ultimate cold-blooded, icy revenge. If there are people who have mastered this trait it would be them.

Fire, on the other hand, is life and warmth. Granted, it can also burn and kill but it is necessary for life in this world. Coldness and death are essentially the absence of fire. Old Nan tells us this in her stories. The Others are cold and they hate and lust after the warm blood of the living, trying to extinguish it. This is all pretty obvious.

Nobody in Westeros loves or like the cold and the ice of itself. There are no ice priests, no people who worship death and winter (at least not south of the Wall), and there is no hint whatsoever that winter or ice are seen in any way as positive things. An eternal winter is Martinworld's equivalent to an apocalypse and an eternal summer its version of an earthly paradise. It cannot be more obvious than that.

[Little Scribe of Naath]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

In general ice lacks a positive quality, though. Cold-blooded revenge is not a positive trait, and cold that preserves the food in winter is the very same cold that kills people. There would be no need to preserve food if there was no winter, right?

And while it is sort of satisfying to read about the Manderlys and other taking their revenge this is a petty and stupid revenge for people who see the bigger picture. The Frey and Bolton may later sorely missed when the Others attack. Not to mention that the Others themselves might also be driven by the ultimate cold-blooded, icy revenge. If there are people who have mastered this trait it would be them.

Fire, on the other hand, is life and warmth. Granted, it can also burn and kill but it is necessary for life in this world. Coldness and death are essentially the absence of fire. Old Nan tells us this in her stories. The Others are cold and they hate and lust after the warm blood of the living, trying to extinguish it. This is all pretty obvious.

Nobody in Westeros loves or like the cold and the ice of itself. There are no ice priests, no people who worship death and winter (at least not south of the Wall), and there is no hint whatsoever that winter or ice are seen in any way as positive things. An eternal winter is Martinworld's equivalent to an apocalypse and an eternal summer its version of an earthly paradise. It cannot be more obvious than that.

I'd be inclined to agree with you if this series did not already have negative associations with fire sprinkled along with the threat of ice. R'hllor and the Red priests being the greatest example, but we also have accounts of the Valyrian empire and their subjugation of slaves.

It is also very interesting to note - Shadows and darkness are heavily associated with the R'hllor religion, not just light and warmth.   The Heart of Shadow lies next to Asshai in the east, while the Heart of Winter (according to Bran's dream in AGOT) is supposedly at the "curtain of light" at the end of the world.

While talking about revenge with fire v/s revenge with ice, compare and contrast Daenerys' rage-filled,impulsive crucifixion of 163 Meereenese nobles  with the cold, calculated long-drawn out revenge of the Northeners. Both are cruel methods. We have enough history on Westeros to know that the fire-associated Targaryens aren't any more gentle,cuddly or "good" than the ice-associated Starks.

And on the subject of the Others, I would be wary of jumping to any conclusions that they are "mindless zombies out for wiping off humanity", when George himself has implied that there is more to them than we assume.