Heresy 63

[Lord Ravenstark]

Winter is the same in Alaska and in Florida??????????

Yes. It is Winter. The way it happens can be different but it is winter anyway.

[Snowmelter]

Yes, it is winter. However, sleeping outside in the winter in Alaska or Florida will kill you dead, but in Florida the kill you dead most likely will come from your fellow man than the elements.

[JonNonRegis]

A very good point, one that I think we should discuss. If humanity was able to defeat them once, why is the story left over as a tale of one single great hero with his magical flaming sword? If humanity wanted to sell the idea of them being superior, why not talk about the heroics of the Night's Watch (or the equivalent at the time) or how men came together?

Well, there is the "Battle for the Dawn" song, in which the men of the Watch rode out to do battle with the Others, as mentioned in CoK.

Personally, I think that song is in error, and the Watch never existed until after the Others had been dealt with. (There is also the idea that it refers to "Others" in a larger sense than white walkers, and/or the final downfall of the Night's King.)

The story of Azor Ahai is very pro-fire and pro- Red Church. Sounds all too much like propaganda.

I wonder. It does mention fire, and the sword is red... yet R'hllor never comes up and nor does the church.

I think it's like the other myths -- a memory of a historical event, distorted through millennia.

But try this on for size: the church was founded, in part, because of that event. So it's no surprise that red priests talk about Azor Ahai in messianic terms.

[Snowmelter]

:agree: This. Well said.

[Black Crow]

Just apropos the individual evil bit, I'd just insert a couple of non-heretical comments. First Ramsay Snow/Bolton appears to be clinically insane rather than consciously evil. As to Gregor Clegane, I can't recall which of his men mentioned and it was only the once, but seemingly Gregor suffers/suffered from blinding headaches, presumably migraine and this was why he was subject to his violent rages.

This is not in either case to justify their behaviour, but to suggest that even at an individual level GRRM is providing a reason for "evil" behaviour.

[TheMtThatRides...Your Mom]

If I may quote an SSM:

I am reminded that at the L.A. Worldcon in 2006, George was on a panel and he was talking a bit dismissively about the cookie-cutter fantasies with a Dark Lord that's the ultimate evil, wants to destroy the world, etc. and he said, you know, nothing is ever that black and white in reality, history's greatest villains and monsters were, from their own perspective, heroic, etc. And he basically said he didn't want to write about a Dark Lord sort of situation.

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. It implied to me that, yes, there's more to the Others than what we've seen so far.

well...im not sure where you get he doesnt do evil from this quote. He is only saying these people do not view themselves as evil. He even calls them monsters and villans. What I take this quote to mean is that he doesnt do the type of evil you see in comic books and some other fantasy. You know like "Ok what truely monstrous and evil thing can I do today to prove my dedication to evil?" I think its very clear from these books he does evil. The point I think hes making is the old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Black Crow]

...The Red Priests are actually somewhat enigmatic to me in this sense, and definitely inconsistent. Mel is, in burning people alive, theoretically serving the interests of Stannis, but let's just say I think there is a great deal more at work in her mind than feudal loyalty.

Moqorro and Benerro I understand much less well than she. Thoros -- no, I could not call him evil at all... but his outlook and behavior are not universal for all Red Priests, not by a country mile.

There is a revealing moment by Mel in her ADwD POV when she realises that Jon isn't going to play ball and thinks to herself that it doesn't matter because she can still use him as she's used Stannis.

She walked as close to Jon Snow as she dared, close enough to feel the mistrust pouring off him like a black fog. He does not love me, will never love me, but he will make use of me. Well and good. Melisandre had danced the same dance with Stannis Baratheon, back in the beginning.

Its quite clear that she has no loyalty to Stannis and that he's just a useful fool, and that she is as GRRM has admitted, playing her own game.

[TheMtThatRides...Your Mom]

Well, let me go out on a limb here: I think GRRM does do evil.

But he does it on an individual scale, a Gregor Clegane or a Ramsay Snow, because that is the extent to which "evil" actually tends to exist in real life. (Think of Jeffrey Dahmer, for instance.) GRRM doesn't tend to implement "evil" on the scale of a whole ethnic group, a culture, or a religion.

The Red Priests are actually somewhat enigmatic to me in this sense, and definitely inconsistent. Mel is, in burning people alive, theoretically serving the interests of Stannis, but let's just say I think there is a great deal more at work in her mind than feudal loyalty.

Moqorro and Benerro I understand much less well than she. Thoros -- no, I could not call him evil at all... but his outlook and behavior are not universal for all Red Priests, not by a country mile.

The Others are... not a simple subject in this department. Consider that they melt when stabbed with dragonglass, and you see that truly, they are, as reported, a different form of life. Trying to judge them by human standards of evil/good is a dicey proposition. (This alone would have made me pause and smile, if I had been GRRM and asked if they are evil.)

and this is what I get for posting before reading the whole thread. George definetly does evil.

[TheMtThatRides...Your Mom]

Just apropos the individual evil bit, I'd just insert a couple of non-heretical comments. First Ramsay Snow/Bolton appears to be clinically insane rather than consciously evil. As to Gregor Clegane, I can't recall which of his men mentioned and it was only the once, but seemingly Gregor suffers/suffered from blinding headaches, presumably migraine and this was why he was subject to his violent rages.

This is not in either case to justify their behaviour, but to suggest that even at an individual level GRRM is providing a reason for "evil" behaviour.

I mean we dont even have to get into named characters. Is every man whoever raped someone insane? Well...you could make that argument certainly. I really, really dont think GRRM is giving these guys a free pass as you seem to think because they have reasons...

honestly, even though this is a topic i could debate forever, im not sure a discussion about what good and evil are is going to be particularly fruitful.

[Toccs]

I think that the context of "evil" in the discussion was the sort of Dark Lord Sauron and his numberless armies of always chatoic evil minions, and specifcally that GRRM does not do that sort of evil.

[Black Crow]

Yeah, and how's that not evil? We call it ethnic cleansing if it's one bunch of humans against another. Genocide, especially if Craster's boys are assimilated into the Others (so spake wiki & the UN on defining genocide: "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.")

Just to add to Wolfmaid’s comments, I think its worth looking at a useful historical parallel. The 30 Years War in Germany was by any standards a humanitarian disaster. The ins and outs of the politics need not detain us but suffice to say that vast areas, particularly in the Palatinate saw killing, devastation and ethnic cleansing in the name of the Empire on a horrific scale. Then, about halfway through the war in came the Swedes and were instantly portrayed by those same Imperial commanders as bloodthirsty baby-eating sub-human savages with snow on their boots.

Now turn to Westeros and weep for the devastation of the Riverlands and all the destruction, murder, rape, ethnic cleansing and other atrocities carried out in the name of the Iron Throne and then ask yourself why the Others should be regarded as uniquely evil and a threat to all living things, when mankind has being doing far worse than anything we’ve seen from the blue-eyed lot.

This is not defend anybody of course, but rather to warn against superficial judgements. Things are not always as simple as they seem

[cealicu_ca]

Yeah, and how's that not evil? We call it ethnic cleansing if it's one bunch of humans against another. Genocide, especially if Craster's boys are assimilated into the Others (so spake wiki & the UN on defining genocide: "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.")

Ethnic? Men has been destroying the weirwoods. Men have been hunting entire species down to extinction. Men kills each other. Ethnic? Those are different species, with different values. Men invaded THEIR lands. I'm sorry, but... really? Ethnic cleansing? That's what you came up with?

I see Men as the aggressors here (as is our specie throughout our entire history). I'm sorry, but if someone from afar comes in and destroys my home, destroys my places of worship, destroy everything that i value... and then i finally fight back - am i wrong in doing it?

[cealicu_ca]

I see the Others as some kind of people who wants to be the dominant group. They are not evil, they are just non-human conquerers. They are not even the all-powerful as people see... remember, they already lost one time.

Wanna bet they are not conquerors? They have been conquered, but they're coming back, "alive" and kicking lol.

[Rooseman]

There's a possible similarity between Daenerys' situation and the Others.

Daenerys has been driven from her home land, and her mission is to get back and reclaim it. Yet it is pointed out, that when she arrives in Westeros, many people will just see her as an invader. But since we also see the story from her POV, her goal seems justified.

Something similar might have happened to the Others, but since we're men and don't know much about them, we just see them as invaders.

Also, it's said "If you arrive with a bunch of Dothraki" or "If you take Westeros with a slave army," the people will be against her just because of that. Might be a connection to the Others having a bad rep for using wights, or maybe even the Children using the Others.

[Black Crow]

Exactly so. I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that such comparisons are intentional, but when it comes to dealing out death and destruction, what's already been happening in Westeros and out east is far worse than the theoretical threat from the blue eyed lot.

[cealicu_ca]

There's a possible similarity between Daenerys' situation and the Others.

Daenerys has been driven from her home land, and her mission is to get back and reclaim it. Yet it is pointed out, that when she arrives in Westeros, many people will just see her as an invader. But since we also see the story from her POV, her goal seems justified.

Something similar might have happened to the Others, but since we're men and don't know much about them, we just see them as invaders.

Also, it's said "If you arrive with a bunch of Dothraki" or "If you take Westeros with a slave army," the people will be against her just because of that. Might be a connection to the Others having a bad rep for using wights, or maybe even the Children using the Others.

Don't want to dismiss it, but i really think that's a bit far out :) They wouldn't like Dany coming with a slave army because it's a "feudal" society that holds slavery in discontent (although probably many peolpe have a "slave" like condition...).

[Urrax]

...it's a "feudal" society that holds slavery in discontent (although probably many peolpe have a "slave" like condition...).

Good point. Supposedly there is no slavery in Westeros - yet the ironborn have thralls.

[Han Snow]

If I may quote an SSM:

I am reminded that at the L.A. Worldcon in 2006, George was on a panel and he was talking a bit dismissively about the cookie-cutter fantasies with a Dark Lord that's the ultimate evil, wants to destroy the world, etc. and he said, you know, nothing is ever that black and white in reality, history's greatest villains and monsters were, from their own perspective, heroic, etc. And he basically said he didn't want to write about a Dark Lord sort of situation.

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. It implied to me that, yes, there's more to the Others than what we've seen so far.

Five books in and so far the Others are clearly presented as EVIL, in that small amount of page time that he actually gave them. You can run around the term but that is what he wrote, that is the context in which they were presented to our heroes and in turn to us. If GRRM somehow decides to change that in the last book, because I doubt he'll give them much space in tWoW, for me it would be lazy and poor writing. He can not possibly hope to de-vilify them in a satisfying manner now. That little speech above was probably meant for his precious game of thrones players, the answer to the question means nothing. Others have to remain villainous if he means to finish this saga in a satisfying manner. Because 90% of the readers will never stand behind the idea of: "Oh, the Others actually have a decent agenda and we should sympathize with them!" Not gonna happen, and GRRM, I think is not that suicidal, unless he really starts to hate ASOIAF. He breaks conventional high fantasy rules, or rather turns them upside down, but this he can't possibly hope to achieve in a satisfying and convincing manner for the readers. Some rules of writing have to be upheld, no matter what. And I think the presentation of the Others in the show speaks volumes about how they are meant to be perceived.

Dany goes "back" into the Smoking Sea of Valyria to sort out the Fire.

Okay, but what is the fire? Some ancient Dragon god, the father of Fire and Blood? A Supervulcano that needs to be put out?

[STRONG LIKE BEAR]

Good point. Supposedly there is no slavery in Westeros - yet the ironborn have thralls.

Thralls and Salt Wives are honorable stations.

Greenlander, plz

[STRONG LIKE BEAR]

Okay, but what is the fire? Some ancient Dragon god, the father of Fire and Blood?

It's whatever that thing is in the opening credits of the show. (my guess)