COFT and the song of ice and fire

[Macgregor of the North]

17 minutes ago, Orphalesion said:

most of the time the book calls them "Uruks", it's more the movies that throw around "Uruk-Hai" like it was punctuation.

Not really, there is actually a chapter called the Uruk Hai, its very much a book term, they call themselves the fighting Uruk Hai.

17 minutes ago, Orphalesion said:

Not sure what you mean by "bred". The Orcs were natural creatures

It is confirmed by Tolkien that Saruman was interbreeding Orcs and men. In Myths revisited in Morgoths Ring it is said he was breeding Orc-Men and Men-Orcs. I believe that Sarumans fighting Uruk Hai were a specially bred creature designed to kill. So pure evil really.

23 minutes ago, Orphalesion said:

Of course my theory is not supported yet, we don't know Jack about why or how the Others came to be.

Agreed

23 minutes ago, Orphalesion said:

So should it turn out the CHildren did create them, it does not have to be a case of the Children sitting in dark towers, cackling evilly as they send out their minions to "kill zem all", that was all I was pointing out.

Cool.

[Orphalesion]

3 hours ago, Macgregor of the North said:

 

It is confirmed by Tolkien that Saruman was interbreeding Orcs and men. In Myths revisited in Morgoths Ring it is said he was breeding Orc-Men and Men-Orcs. I believe that Sarumans fighting Uruk Hai were a specially bred creature designed to kill. So pure evil really.

 

I wasn't saying that Saruman didn't possibly forcefully interbreed them (hence my reference to the Reek Chapters, was talking about the rape of Jeyne Poole, I'm pretty sure Orthanc was full of Jeyne Pooles prior to the War of the Ring, Tolkien just would never have written explicitly about it) Still Orcs are natural creatures, not magical. And if you have read Morgoth's Ring then you know Tolkien struggled with the idea of their possibility of redemption.  

And again the Unsullied were created to kill, what makes them different from the Uruks? What makes the Mountain different? He only exists to destroy. What makes UnGregor different? What makes the Dothraki different? All they do is kill, rape, destroy and enslave?

Only they weren't specifically bred? That's arbitrary. They were definitely reared up to be killing machines from their early childhood.

What I think is that GRRM meant he didn't want Evil to be a outside thing, like a semi-devine creature like Sauron, but he wanted human evil.

WHich still fails to explain the Others of course...

If you want to argue that Tolkien failed to provide enough insight into the reasons why his "bad guys" ended up that way (in his published works)or display redemption, then I will have to concede. There you would be right, people seem to rarely come back from crossing completely over to the dark side.

Edit: Not really, there is actually a chapter called the Uruk Hai, its very much a book term, they call themselves the fighting Uruk Hai.

-Right I remembered that wrong. Long story short in my Middle Earth RP group somebody who had only seen the movies kept talking about "Uruk-Hai" as being different from Orcs a(not just cross breeds, like he was of the opinion that they were their own different thing) and since them I tend to avoid that word. Sorry about that.

[thewolfofStarfall]

On 1/18/2017 at 0:17 PM, Orphalesion said:

Spirits of the dead are beings that once were alive, but still roam the world. Spirits associated with death either are harbingers as you correctly concluded or spirits that are known for causing death and decay either through actions or their presence alone.

I do think, without meaning any disrespect that some of GRRM's statements about his world are very similar to the various essays Tolkien wrote late in his life (like the supposed gender equality among Elves that never shows up and seems even to be contradicted by the text). As in intentions and wishes that might not exactly match the text. Like if there is anything positive about the Others at all, it will be difficult to showcase without it coming over as halfbacked. Same with GRRM's statements about how the Children aren't Elves. Sorry, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... 

And there are specks of pure black and white in Planetos, whether it was intentional or not. And explanation why somebody commits "evil" actions makes them not any less evil.

Also mentioning the Orcs here sells Tolkien short. Sauron very much thought he was in the right and that what he did would ultimately benefit everyone. The Orcs (funny that you point out the Uruk Hai, which are seldom referred to in the books, much less by that name...) actually believe that the forces of good are the true evil and their name for the Valar/archangels is "Enemy", the same title the "good" side bestows upon them. And finally one mention hints at Orcs fighting against Sauron, on the side of men and elves... Tolkien is not as black and white as some make him out to be. Turin, Galadriel, Feanor...there is a lot of grey in Middle Earth...

Also who says that, if the CoTF created the Others, they were meant to "exterminate" the race of men? My personal theory in regard to this possibility is that they were meant to drive humans out of Westeros, not completely exterminate them everywhere.

In this theory the Children created the Others as a means to drive humans from their realms, but it turned out that they have created something that they can't control, something that would not only exterminate men, but them as well. So in the end they actually had to work together with humanity in the War for the Dawn.

@Orphalesion @Macgregor of the North

Very interesting discussion you guys had. I find there are problems with the popular notion that ASIOAF is "morally ambiguous". 1. People take this to be synmounous with "moral complexity". 2. They  exaggerate this notion and act as if there are absolutely no black or white characters in the saga, thus no ultimate good or evil. I wonder where the hell this idea of "greyness" they claim permeates the series comes from if they don't believe there is any good or evil? The idea of everyone being "morally grey" is rampant with the stolen concept fallacy. It really bothers and confuses me how this premise of moral ambiguity which is essentially amorality is taken as being superior storytelling to the supposedly "black and white" premise of Tolkien's works, for example. This blogpost explains the difference between "moral ambiguity" and "moral complexity". http://freedomkeys.com/ar-moralgrayness.htm There is also an excellent excerpt on this by issue by Ayn Rand. http://freedomkeys.com/ar-moralgrayness.htm