Heresy 200 The bicentennial edition

[Black Crow]

As to possible outcomes, I think [with a nod to the predicted bittersweet ending] there may be two possible outcomes here.

Danaerys the Dragonlord is clearly the champion [for want of a better term though it may be more complex than that] of Fire. She is Azor Ahai and her dragons need to be destroyed and possibly her with them. 

Beyond that we have two variants.

Either Bran is to be the champion of Ice, in which case Jon is the Prince that was Promised, [but not Azor Ahai] and is not to lead either Ice or Fire to victory but to impose peace, even if it means slaying both Bran and her nibs to do it.

Alternatively Jon becomes King of Winter and of Ice, in which case it will be Bran's role to settle it all.

Either is possible

[Matthew.]

2 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

I don't think there would be a darklord either in the sense of what Dark Lord's usually mean.GRRM' s characters are a bit more gray.

This is why I raise the question about why a "NK" or some equivalent WW leader couldn't exist--how are we defining a dark lord?

For example, I think I understand what GRRM intends to criticize in talking about the dark lord as a genre trope, but I don't actually agree with him that Sauron is representative of a bad trend in genre fiction; if anything, I appreciate the fact that Sauron wasn't really a villain, or even a character in the LoTR, but a distant idea--victory over Sauron cannot be achieved by warriors and wizards, because even great men and women can be corrupted by power. This is why Aragorn, Baromir, and Gandolf cannot carry the burden of the ring.

If GRRM were looking for an example of a cliché, ancient evil dark lord, he should have cited his own novel, Fevre Dream.

Which brings me to the other sticking point I have with this particular bit of criticism: just because GRRM aspires to certain goals as a writer, that doesn't mean he always achieves them. As you say, he wants to write characters that are shades of gray, but I find myself hard pressed to describe Ramsay Bolton as a nuanced, "shade of gray" villain...in ADWD, in particular, GRRM seemed to be going so hard for shock value that Ramsay felt more like a villain written by D&D than a villain written by the same author who'd created Tywin Lannister.

GRRM has a lot to say about how magic "should" be used in fantasy, comparing it to anchovies on a pizza, and suggesting that magic shouldn't overwhelm plot, yet I think he has already fallen short of that standard by introducing resurrection. Resurrection, even when it comes at a price, does a lot to take the tension out of a story--this is why Jon's final ADWD chapter arrives without sufficient emotional impact.

The only thing that can do more to take the stakes out of a story would be the ability to change the past.

Edit: Huh. I was sure I remembered that GRRM quote about Dark Lords as relating to Tolkien, and being a part of a larger criticism of things like orcs and evil races, but perhaps I was conflating that with the "Aragorn's taxes" criticism GRRM made on a different occasion.

[Matthew.]

1 hour ago, Black Crow said:

Dangerous to be sure, but with an ethereal beauty reeking of faerie, which is far removed from the mummers' ghouls.

Thus, the distinction in my earlier post between visual adaptation and motive; the show's Others are not GRRM's Others in looks, but what about in behavior?

Is the show's "Night King" somehow acting in a way that is contrary to what the text has established with the Others? We are to understand them as committing genocide upon the Wildlings, killing innocents, sending dead family members to terrorize living kin, forcing harsh burdens, such as Tormund having to see his own wight-ified son.

If anything, what makes me question whether or not a NK equivalent exists within the text is that he seems to blatantly exist to simplify the conflict--the NK (or perhaps the heart tree that fuels him) is the center of the storm, the mind behind the burning blue eyes of the wights. In that regard, what the show protagonists must achieve in order to end the biggest threat - the wight phenomenon - is fairly straightforward, whereas the solution in the books is probably more complicated.

[PrettyPig]

1 hour ago, Black Crow said:

And so someone [at the LA Worldcon in 2006] followed up asking, Well, what about the Others? They seem pretty clearly evil. He paused and then smiled and said we'd have to keep reading to see where that goes

This reminds me of an observation I made elsewhere about similarities between the Others, Bloodraven, other characters in the northern arc, and a plotline of the old Dr. Who series.  

In it, there was a race of aliens thought to be hostile, bent on total destruction of The Doctor, and it turned out that they just needed his secret of regeneration- the aliens were trapped in time loop state of suspended animation, and all they wanted was The Doctor to use his powers to help them finally die.

[JNR]

7 hours ago, LynnS said:

I know nothing about chess but can't help thinking that this passage can be interpreted as a chess move:  black queen-side casteling?  a Sicilian defense strategy?  What are your thoughts?

Well, it's hard to make the jump from chess (strategy, tactics, both sides see all pieces and know all possible moves) to literary symbolism.

Fundamentally I interpret that passage in character terms.  Sansa is dreamy and impractical -- she literally perceives castles in the sky -- whereas Shae is much slyer, knows more, and yet is doomed.  Sansa sees less, plays less skillfully, but such is her inherited chess position (as presumed heir to Winterfell) that she gets by.  

I suppose you could talk about Sansa being the queen that is reserved for the midgame or endgame (kept back), whereas Shae is a far more aggressive queen the inexperienced player pulls out early on -- and regrets when it's trapped and taken off the board.   

(The movie Searching for Bobby Fischer has a good depiction of this very situation.)

[LynnS]

3 minutes ago, JNR said:

(The movie Searching for Bobby Fischer has a good depiction of this very situation.)

OMG! It's Hogwarts.

 

[wolfmaid7]

1 hour ago, Matthew. said:

This is why I raise the question about why a "NK" or some equivalent WW leader couldn't exist--how are we defining a dark lord?

For example, I think I understand what GRRM intends to criticize in talking about the dark lord as a genre trope, but I don't actually agree with him that Sauron is representative of a bad trend in genre fiction; if anything, I appreciate the fact that Sauron wasn't really a villain, or even a character in the LoTR, but a distant idea--victory over Sauron cannot be achieved by warriors and wizards, because even great men and women can be corrupted by power. This is why Aragorn, Baromir, and Gandolf cannot carry the burden of the ring.

If GRRM were looking for an example of a cliché, ancient evil dark lord, he should have cited his own novel, Fevre Dream.

Which brings me to the other sticking point I have with this particular bit of criticism: just because GRRM aspires to certain goals as a writer, that doesn't mean he always achieves them. As you say, he wants to write characters that are shades of gray, but I find myself hard pressed to describe Ramsay Bolton as a nuanced, "shade of gray" villain...in ADWD, in particular, GRRM seemed to be going so hard for shock value that Ramsay felt more like a villain written by D&D than a villain written by the same author who'd created Tywin Lannister.

GRRM has a lot to say about how magic "should" be used in fantasy, comparing it to anchovies on a pizza, and suggesting that magic shouldn't overwhelm plot, yet I think he has already fallen short of that standard by introducing resurrection. Resurrection, even when it comes at a price, does a lot to take the tension out of a story--this is why Jon's final ADWD chapter arrives without sufficient emotional impact.

The only thing that can do more to take the stakes out of a story would be the ability to change the past.

Edit: Huh. I was sure I remembered that GRRM quote about Dark Lords as relating to Tolkien, and being a part of a larger criticism of things like orcs and evil races, but perhaps I was conflating that with the "Aragorn's taxes" criticism GRRM made on a different occasion.

I am not sure what GRRM's critique of the Dark Lord cliche was about.I can only speculate it being a matter of an "evil figure" 

I believe that this figure behind the wws and the dead (and I am sure there is) is someone whose motives we may find very sympathetic.Or he may turn out to be a master chess player just creating distractions and chaos to achieve a desired end he thinks is best.

 I think their are some characters like Ramsey that exist to show that there are just vile people who do cruel things.No rhyme or reason to them.

What D&D did was create just that,and evil figure with no rhyme or reason.He just coming to mess carp up and make the tv folks salivate.

The resurrection angle I don't think he's overplayed that.My big take away if anything from this series is perception.Making the gullible,superstitious Lemmings believe something is one way when it's not.The resurrection angle I think will fall under that category.Only because I think the greenseers ability is behind it and it goes towards their concealment.

I think among the many things we really should focus on and it gets dismissed or no time in discussions is the fact that greenseers/Skinchangers are perpetrating being gods.That is huge because it puts them in a great position.

 

[JNR]

7 hours ago, PrettyPig said:

nutshell, giants are the Bigfoot of ASOIAF...always gonna be somebody trying to catch one.   COTF are the poor dolphins in the tuna net

Makes perfect sense to me.  Nice shades, too.

6 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

I find it hard to believe that those in BR's cave are the last their is of their kind

You might be right.  We have no idea where the CotF came from, whether there are more in the world, or even how many continents there are in the world... or for that matter, whether there are more hidden, warded, giant cave systems in the far north.

Even in the Stormlands, it seems there are cave systems humanity has quite forgotten.

5 hours ago, Matthew. said:

It could be that this is just an oversight on GRRM's part, it could be that the Others aren't meant to be thoughtful or strategic...or it could be that they're not attacking the heart trees because to do so would be to act against their fundamental nature--to act against the entire purpose of their creation.

It's an interesting point.  I don't think it's an oversight, exactly, but we just don't see any instance of the Popsicles attacking plant life, which they don't seem to perceive or hate or find uself the same way they do animal life.   (Certainly I don't recall any wighted trees.)

Re the idea that they might cut weirwoods strategically to diminish the power of the CotF -- I'm not sure they are even aware of the connection between weirwoods and CotF.  

They presumably know there is life in the cave system, and they know of the ward that blocks their access, and they may even know there are CotF living there, but that's not really the same thing as thinking "Let's chop down weirwoods to inhibit the capabilities of CotF greenseers, since there might theoretically be some."

Their strategic powers also seem a little dicey in general.  If they could analyze and plan very skillfully, surely they would create boats of some sort to float around the Wall, rendering it essentially a frozen Maginot Line.  Or perhaps they will, and we just haven't seen that happen yet...

[wolfmaid7]

1 hour ago, Matthew. said:

This is why I raise the question about why a "NK" or some equivalent WW leader couldn't exist--how are we defining a dark lord?

For example, I think I understand what GRRM intends to criticize in talking about the dark lord as a genre trope, but I don't actually agree with him that Sauron is representative of a bad trend in genre fiction; if anything, I appreciate the fact that Sauron wasn't really a villain, or even a character in the LoTR, but a distant idea--victory over Sauron cannot be achieved by warriors and wizards, because even great men and women can be corrupted by power. This is why Aragorn, Baromir, and Gandolf cannot carry the burden of the ring.

If GRRM were looking for an example of a cliché, ancient evil dark lord, he should have cited his own novel, Fevre Dream.

Which brings me to the other sticking point I have with this particular bit of criticism: just because GRRM aspires to certain goals as a writer, that doesn't mean he always achieves them. As you say, he wants to write characters that are shades of gray, but I find myself hard pressed to describe Ramsay Bolton as a nuanced, "shade of gray" villain...in ADWD, in particular, GRRM seemed to be going so hard for shock value that Ramsay felt more like a villain written by D&D than a villain written by the same author who'd created Tywin Lannister.

GRRM has a lot to say about how magic "should" be used in fantasy, comparing it to anchovies on a pizza, and suggesting that magic shouldn't overwhelm plot, yet I think he has already fallen short of that standard by introducing resurrection. Resurrection, even when it comes at a price, does a lot to take the tension out of a story--this is why Jon's final ADWD chapter arrives without sufficient emotional impact.

The only thing that can do more to take the stakes out of a story would be the ability to change the past.

Edit: Huh. I was sure I remembered that GRRM quote about Dark Lords as relating to Tolkien, and being a part of a larger criticism of things like orcs and evil races, but perhaps I was conflating that with the "Aragorn's taxes" criticism GRRM made on a different occasion.

I am not sure what GRRM's critique of the Dark Lord cliche was about.I can only speculate it being a matter of an "evil figure" 

I believe that this figure behind the wws and the dead (and I am sure there is) is someone whose motives we may find very sympathetic.Or he may turn out to be a master chess player just creating distractions and chaos to achieve a desired end he thinks is best.

 I think their are some characters like Ramsey that exist to show that there are just vile people who do cruel things.No rhyme or reason to them.

What D&D did was create just that,and evil figure with no rhyme or reason.He just coming to mess carp up and make the tv folks salivate.

[LynnS]

2 hours ago, Black Crow said:

As to possible outcomes, I think [with a nod to the predicted bittersweet ending] there may be two possible outcomes here.

Danaerys the Dragonlord is clearly the champion [for want of a better term though it may be more complex than that] of Fire. She is Azor Ahai and her dragons need to be destroyed and possibly her with them. 

Beyond that we have two variants.

Either Bran is to be the champion of Ice, in which case Jon is the Prince that was Promised, [but not Azor Ahai] and is not to lead either Ice or Fire to victory but to impose peace, even if it means slaying both Bran and her nibs to do it.

Alternatively Jon becomes King of Winter and of Ice, in which case it will be Bran's role to settle it all.

Either is possible

It's also possible that the three 'prentice boys' will work in tandem with each other; both aiding and providing checks and balances.  To quote Ned: the lone wolf dies where the pack survives.  Bran expresses the wish that he could teach all his siblings to fly; while Jon sees his purpose as aiding Robb at least, incognito from the shadows.  Arya on the other hand, swings her dolls like a morningstar when menaced by 'vegetables'.  The three may be chained together, like the 'prentice boys seen shambling behind the thing that comes in the night, beyond the Wall.

The bittersweet endings may come in the form of the gift of mercy and/or self sacrifice.

Quote

 

A Feast for Crows - Arya II

"Death is not the worst thing," the kindly man replied. "It is His gift to us, an end to want and pain. On the day that we are born the Many-Faced God sends each of us a dark angel to walk through life beside us. When our sins and our sufferings grow too great to be borne, the angel takes us by the hand to lead us to the nightlands, where the stars burn ever bright. Those who come to drink from the black cup are looking for their angels. If they are afraid, the candles soothe them. When you smell our candles burning, what does it make you think of, my child?"

A Game of Thrones - Bran IV

In his dream he was climbing again, pulling himself up an ancient windowless tower, his fingers forcing themselves between blackened stones, his feet scrabbling for purchase. Higher and higher he climbed, through the clouds and into the night sky, and still the tower rose before him. When he paused to look down, his head swam dizzily and he felt his fingers slipping. Bran cried out and clung for dear life. The earth was a thousand miles beneath him and he could not fly. He could not fly. He waited until his heart had stopped pounding, until he could breathe, and he began to climb again. There was no way to go but up. Far above him, outlined against a vast pale moon, he thought he could see the shapes of gargoyles. His arms were sore and aching, but he dared not rest. He forced himself to climb faster. The gargoyles watched him ascend. Their eyes glowed red as hot coals in a brazier. Perhaps once they had been lions, but now they were twisted and grotesque. Bran could hear them whispering to each other in soft stone voices terrible to hear. He must not listen, he told himself, he must not hear, so long as he did not hear them he was safe. But when the gargoyles pulled themselves loose from the stone and padded down the side of the tower to where Bran clung, he knew he was not safe after all. "I didn't hear," he wept as they came closer and closer, "I didn't, I didn't."

 

He woke gasping, lost in darkness, and saw a vast shadow looming over him. "I didn't hear," he whispered, trembling in fear, but then the shadow said "Hodor," and lit the candle by the bedside, and Bran sighed with relief.

 

 

[Melifeather]

10 hours ago, PrettyPig said:

I know you guys think I am completely insane, but I believe that the Others' return is tied to Dany coming of age.  Jon too, in a lesser way perhaps, but mostly Dany.    

Working back through the timeline, it seems that the WW sightings began in the north right about the time that Dany would have arrived in Pentos and most likely had her flowering- something that ties in to the natural reproductive/biological cycles of reptiles that are governed by a "third eye" and in a very obscure way also relates to the PTWP/AA prophecy.

Interesting! Would you be so kind as to expand?

8 hours ago, PrettyPig said:

Thank you!  Glad you enjoyed it! 

I wanted to post it here for Heretic discussion, but I think you can see why I opted not to.  :/.     I welcome all discussion about it though, here or there- feel free to quote from it if you find something relevant to whatever Heresy topic we're on.

I don't think it's too long, and I would love it if it were posted here...unless people here would come by for a visit. That would be nice too!

3 hours ago, PrettyPig said:

This reminds me of an observation I made elsewhere about similarities between the Others, Bloodraven, other characters in the northern arc, and a plotline of the old Dr. Who series.  

In it, there was a race of aliens thought to be hostile, bent on total destruction of The Doctor, and it turned out that they just needed his secret of regeneration- the aliens were trapped in time loop state of suspended animation, and all they wanted was The Doctor to use his powers to help them finally die.

I really like this! Would this tie into your earlier post about Dany's flowering being the impetus for the return of white walkers? Magic begetting magic?

[Brad Stark]

Ramsey Bolton is a rotten, terrible and somewhat flat character.   But Roose is far more interesting and Ramsey is the consequences of his actions. 

[Frey family reunion]

I'll go ahead and give what will probably be some of the least popular suggestions about what could be happening behind the scenes.    My guess is man's introduction to the weirnet has introduced the notion of revenge and killing into the weirnet.  Somehow someway, I think the doomsday weapon of choice might be the red comet which may be circling the planet in increasingly smaller orbits.   

Based on the flight path given in ACOK, I think it's ultimate target is going to be the ice shelf located north of the Frostfangs.  The inferno at Hardhome may have been the fiery sacrifice needed to start pulling the comet into the planet.  Or perhaps it was the Doom of Valyria, in which case, the Faceless Ones may have been recruited to help the weirnet' plan.  So ultimately, I think we're going to get a near extinction level event on the continent of Westeros (look up the Younger Dryas effect)

 I'm unsure if Bloodraven is the puppeteer or the puppet in this plot, but my guess is puppet.

As for the "Others" I think they may be something else.  I think something or someone in the weirnet, opened Bran's "third eye" and pointed him to the direction of the Heart of Winter, where he saw the future through the "curtain of light".    I'm not sure how, but I think the White Walkers may be part of future Bran's plan to perhaps stop or at least minimize the future he saw.

The fact that we have ice golems who wear ice armor and wield ice swords, makes me think that future Bran has had a hand in their creation, his fascination with knights having been well established.   His future self has reached back through the weirnet to create "snow knights", to coin Cotter Pyke's phrase, which are also made to resemble the White Walkers from Old Nan's tales.  They are being used to spread terror north of the Wall and drive the wildlings south of the Wall.  The wildlings are the sheep and the White Walkers are the sheep dogs.  

[alienarea]

Just my current 2 cents before the dust settles next year:

I don't know about the books, but am convinced that the show will end with Daenerys killing the Nights King, dying herself doing so, to be reunited with Drogo and her son.

That's the bittersweet ending.

[Black Crow]

As I understand GRRM's remarks, his argument is not about good and evil per se, but rather that individuals and groups need to be fully rounded and portrayed in three dimensions. Characters such as Gregor Clegane and Ramsay Bolton are certainly evil by any standards - though its worth noting that the former's violent rages are driven by chronic migraines, but for the truly important characters we get a far more detailed treatment: Tywin Lannister's outward actions are certainly akin to those of a dark lord but GRRM gives us a far more complex character.

Returning to the Nights King created by the mummers, we don't get this, because their play is necessarily designed for watchers not readers, what is subtle is made obvious; it is a caricature, but the danger is that this caricature is likely to influence perceptions of reality, when in fact the walkers are likely to be very different, far more complex and ultimately perhaps far more closely related to certain people we know

[Bluetiger]

8 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

I am not sure what GRRM's critique of the Dark Lord cliche was about.I can only speculate it being a matter of an "evil figure" 

I believe that this figure behind the wws and the dead (and I am sure there is) is someone whose motives we may find very sympathetic.Or he may turn out to be a master chess player just creating distractions and chaos to achieve a desired end he thinks is best.

Here is that GRRM quote:

Quote

“I admire Tolkien greatly. His books had enormous influence on me. And the trope that he sort of established—the idea of the Dark Lord and his Evil Minions—in the hands of lesser writers over the years and decades has not served the genre well. It has been beaten to death. The battle of good and evil is a great subject for any book and certainly for a fantasy book, but I think ultimately the battle between good and evil is weighed within the individual human heart and not necessarily between an army of people dressed in white and an army of people dressed in black. When I look at the world, I see that most real living breathing human beings are grey.”

What's funny is that I remember that in one of his letters published in a book Letters of JRR Tolkien, JRRT criticised the 'pure evil dark lord' concept, saying that even Sauron was grey and miserable. Shame I don't have that book with me right now.

To cut it short, JRRT explains that in his world there's no such thing as 'Absolute Evil' and that Sauron's downfall was his love of order and progress.

If somebody is interested, it's Letter 183 , from 1956:

Summary from Tolkien Gateway Wiki:

Quote

Real life causes are not clear cut because human tyrants are seldom utterly corrupted into pure evil will. Even the most corrupt have followers only partly as corrupt, and many leaders still need to have "good motives". In conflicts about important things or ideas Tolkien was most impressed with the importance of being on the right side. If a side has the right, which depended on values and beliefs above and independent of a particular conflict, then it justifies that side's cause throughout.

Tolkien spoke not of individuals. The rightness of a cause will not justify the actions of its supporters who are morally wicked. Aggressors are primarily to blame for evil deeds proceeding from their original violation of justice. They had no right to demand that their assaulted victims should not demand an eye for an eye. Similarly, good actions do not justify the wrong side. One may honour and rejoice at acts heroic courage or deeds of mercy, but it still would not alter a judgment as to which side was right.

His story did not deal with Absolute Evil, said Tolkien, doubting that there is such a thing. No rational being is wholly evil. Sauron was as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible. Yet he had begun well, at least on the level of desiring to order all things according to his own wisdom. But he went further than any human tyrant in pride and lust for domination, being in origin an immortal spirit, of the same kind as Gandalf and Saruman but of a far higher order. In The Lord of the Rings the basic conflict was not about "freedom" (though it was involved), but about God and His sole right to divine honour. The Eldar and Númenóreans believed in The One and held worship of any other an abomination.

Sauron desired to be a God-King. He was thrice involved in treachery: First, admiring strength, he had followed Morgoth and become his chief agent in Middle-earth. Second, when Morgoth fell he forsook his allegiance, but from fear only and remained in Middle-earth. Third, seeing how his knowledge was greatly admired and how easy it was to influence other rational creatures, he re-assumed the position of Morgoth's representative in the Second Age. By the end of the Third Age, although actually weaker than before, he claimed, in his pride, to be Morgoth returned. If victorious he would have demanded divine honour and absolute temporal power over all. Even if "the West" had bred or hired orcs or ravaged the lands of other men, their cause would have remained indefeasibly right.

Thus the fiddle-faddle in reviews, said Tolkien, as to whether his "good people" were kind and merciful and gave quarter (which they did) was beside the point. Some critics seemed determined to represent him as a simple-minded adolescent and willfully distorted what was said in his tale. Denethor alone proved this but none of the people on the "right side" were any better than men have been, are, or could be. Middle-earth is not an "imaginary" world but an imaginary historical moment in our habitation.

 

Edit:

Spoiler

Letter 183:

(...)

Of course in 'real life' causes are not clear cut — if only because human tyrants are seldom utterly corrupted into pure manifestations of evil will. As far as I can judge some seem to have been so corrupt, but even they must rule subjects only part of whom are equally corrupt, while many still need to have 'good motives', real or feigned, presented to them. As we see today. Still there are clear cases: e.g. acts of sheer cruel aggression, in which therefore right is from the beginning wholly on one side, whatever evil the resentful suffering of evil may eventually generate in members of the right side. There are also conflicts about important things or ideas. In such cases I am more impressed by the extreme importance of being on the right side, than I am disturbed by the revelation of the jungle of confused motives, private purposes, and individual actions (noble or base) in which the right and the wrong in actual human conflicts are commonly involved. If the conflict really is about things properly called right and wrong, or good and evil, then the rightness or goodness of one side is not proved or established by the claims of either side; it must depend on values and beliefs above and independent of the particular conflict. A judge must assign right and wrong according to principles which he holds valid in all cases. That being so, the right will remain an inalienable possession of the right side and Justify its cause throughout. (I speak of causes, not of individuals. Of course to a judge whose moral ideas have a religious or philosophical basis, or indeed to anyone not blinded by partisan fanaticism, the rightness of the cause will not justify the actions of its supporters, as individuals, that are morally wicked. But though 'propaganda' may seize on them as proofs that their cause was not in fact 'right', that is not valid. The aggressors are themselves primarily to blame for the evil deeds that proceed from their original violation of justice and the passions that their own wickedness must naturally (by their standards) have been expected to arouse. They at any rate have no right to demand that their victims when assaulted should not demand an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth.)

Similarly, good actions by those on the wrong side will not justify their cause. There may be deeds on the wrong side of heroic courage, or some of a higher moral level: deeds of mercy and forbearance. A judge may accord them honour and rejoice to see how some men can rise above the hate and anger of a conflict; even as he may deplore the evil deeds on the right side and be grieved to see how hatred once provoked can drag them down. But this will not alter his judgement as to which side was in the right, nor his assignment of the primary blame for all the evil that followed to the other side.

In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there is such a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think that at any rate any 'rational being' is wholly evil. Satan fell. In my myth Morgoth fell before Creation of the physical world. In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible. He had gone the way of all tyrants: beginning well, at least on the level that while desiring to order all things according to his own wisdom he still at first considered the (economic) well-being of other inhabitants of the Earth. But he went further than human tyrants in pride and the lust for domination, being in origin an immortal (angelic) spirit.* 

In short, JRRT and GRRM have quite similar views about 'pure evil' and even Lord Sauron was not fully evil. GRRM's critique was of the trope that he sort of established—the idea of the Dark Lord and his Evil Minions—in the hands of lesser writers over the years and decades has not served the genre well. It has been beaten to death.

[Bluetiger]

1 hour ago, Black Crow said:

Returning to the Nights King created by the mummers, we don't get this, because their play is necessarily designed for watchers not readers, what is subtle is made obvious; it is a caricature, but the danger is that this caricature is likely to influence perceptions of reality, when in fact the walkers are likely to be very different, far more complex and ultimately perhaps far more closely related to certain people we know

I agree. If in the books it turns out that Others are more complex than 'pure evil' coming to 'kill everybody', than this Night's King can easily be called the worst TV-show addition. Well, unless in the remaining seasons they explain why NK wants to destroy Westeros - Season 6 spoilers:

Spoiler

why the f*** he wants to extract revange for COTF wrongdoing on humans? It's not like his just mindless creature, it's clearly shown that his somewhat intelligent... Are the WW in danger of extinction? Do they need resources? Food? Are they fighting for survival? If the show doesn't explain this, I don't buy this Night's King dude.

But indeed, we shouldn't look at the books through TV show lenses, especially when it comes to The Others. Show stuff can serve as a guide of what might happen, but not of what has to happen in TWOW and ADOS.

[LynnS]

6 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

I don't think it's too long, and I would love it if it were posted here...unless people here would come by for a visit. That would be nice too!

I don't think it's too long either and I'd like to see it posted here as well.  The blackthorne flower as the winter rose is loaded with magical symbolism.  A white star (flower) that blooms at the end of winter to mark the spring reminds me of this passage:
 

Quote

 

A Storm of Swords - Jon IV

Ghost was gone when the wildings led their horses from the cave. Did he understand about Castle Black? Jon took a breath of the crisp morning air and allowed himself to hope. The eastern sky was pink near the horizon and pale grey higher up. The Sword of the Morning still hung in the south, the bright white star in its hilt blazing like a diamond in the dawn, but the blacks and greys of the darkling forest were turning once again to greens and golds, reds and russets. And above the soldier pines and oaks and ash and sentinels stood the Wall, the ice pale and glimmering beneath the dust and dirt that pocked its surface.

 

The diamond in the dawn is venus, the morning star, the goddess of love and beauty or the Queen of Love and Beauty.   The qualifier is that the flower blooms during the false spring at the tourney of Harrenhall and crowning Lyanna QOLAB, a false trail where Jon is concerned.  Ashara Dayne is the white star that produces purple-eyed fruit.    

 

[PrettyPig]

4 hours ago, LynnS said:

The diamond in the dawn is venus, the morning star, the goddess of love and beauty or the Queen of Love and Beauty.   The qualifier is that the flower blooms during the false spring at the tourney of Harrenhall and crowning Lyanna QOLAB, a false trail where Jon is concerned.  Ashara Dayne is the white star that produces purple-eyed fruit

Yes

and this distinction will take on more significance once I wrap up the Trees essay - at ToHh, the rose that should have been honored was the starry false one; instead the "true" rose of spring was given the honor.  This was a mistake.

it will all make sense after the next essay.

[JNR]

It's quite plain to me what GRRM had in mind in talking about dark lords.  

As usual, his criticism is informed by the post-Tolkien, pre-ASOIAF tropes of popular fantasy as established in the seventies and eighties. I'm talking about the work of writers like Terry Brooks, David Eddings, Robert Jordan, etc.

Virtually all the best-selling fantasy series prior to ASOIAF had such dark lords.  They were Sauron variations: all-powerful instruments of evil, overlords of trusted evil minions (like the Nazgul) and hosts of evil (like the orcs), almost invariably collectively described as "the shadow."  Another instance would be Voldemort and another would be Palpatine from Star Wars.  

The books simply do not have such a figure except in the imagination of Melisandre and other red-faith zealots.  This is not, IMO, something that's likely to change, because it's a deliberate design choice by GRRM as an expression of his contempt for such super-cliches.  

Notice that there is no reference to such an entity in the 1993 summary, either.  There we find Popsicles, another villain type known as the neverborn which he apparently scrapped because it was a shameless "borrowing" from Robert Jordan, the wights, and that's that.  I don't think it even occurred to him at any point that there would be a single overlord as the architect of Popsicle strategy or behavior.  

If, after he sold the rights to another organization, that organization's show-runners made such a choice?  Well, that is not something he would have appreciated much IMO.  I picture quite a bit of eye-rolling on his part.

You can also see GRRM taking the same dismissive tone he takes in the statement "We don't need any more Dark Lords" any time he talks about other failings of pre-ASOIAF fantasy.  Examples include:

• Protagonist heroes, fated to save the world, who are immune from harm due to their destiny.  Think Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter, etc.  ASOIAF has no protagonist at all.  Certainly Jon Snow is not the protagonist or hero of the series, but only a major POV character (and his POV chapters don't even exist in one of the published books).

• Saucy smallfolk who talk back to, or otherwise defy, royalty.  GRRM's favorite phrase to describe what would realistically happen to such people is "tongues would be ripped out with hot pincers."