The White Walkers as Good Guys?

[Corvo Attano]

We see this pretty much totally opposite then. This series is clearly about realistic characters, about how "good" and "evil" are fairly redundant terms in real life, about how perspective can massively change things. For a series of brilliant surprise and political intrige to descend into obvious heros Danerys and Jon Snow saving the world from the evil people would be awful and totally betray the whole style we've had so far. It may appeal to fantasy fans, but not to the huge number of us who're attracted to the series precisely because it subverts standard fantasy.

There is no reason that any characters would know the nature of the Others, they haven't been around for millenia, before written records.

I still think the Others will be the primary antagonists to the Westerosi, but that doesn't mean they'll be evil.

"Subverting Expectations" does not mean flipping the entire series on its head in the last book.

[Black Wolf Smith]

It is not so much that they are good, or bad, but that they are different form of life. What may be good for them may or may not be good for the people of Westeros.

Oh yea, you speak Heresy!!!! :commie: :commie: :commie:

[aceluby]

"Subverting Expectations" does not mean flipping the entire series on its head in the last book.

There are two books to go and we've already had PLENTY of hints that the others aren't the supreme evil we've been led to believe since the first book. Not only that, but what we do know of them is 6,000 years old and compared to what's gone down elsewhere, what they've done as far as killing is mild to say the least. It wouldn't be 'flipping the entire series' unless you think a few confrontations between humans and the others, a few stories from long ago, and conversations mostly in Bran's arc are 'the entire series'.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So that means Others can think and love. So they arent that bad.

You can run through a "who's who" of historical figures who both thought and loved, but were nevertheless horrible.

[TheBastardofBluegrass]

Words can literally not describe how much I detest this theory. GRRM is a good writer, he wouldn't build up the Others as being the primary antagonists (to quote several characters, "The ancient enemy. The only enemy.") for five or six books, only to flip the entire thing on its head in the last book. It would be terrible writing.

I agree and disagree with you, I think throughout the whole series, perceptions of good and evil are snapshots of personalities. The modern conventions of good and evil are becoming more gray. What I think is most important is whether certain aspects "fit" and what fits with this series, is not that everyone is either good or evil, it's that the actions of the characters are justified, and that they're most importantly - INTERESTING. To me, a mindless big bad isn't compelling. So, to that end, I think there's going to be some kind of "humanizing" for The Others.

[KingofSothoryos]

I think we will find that the Children of the Forest summoned the White Walkers as a preemptive strike to break the pact with men because they foresaw the invasion of the Andals!

[Aderyn the Sly]

First off, I want to say that we don't know for sure that the Night's King's Bride was an Other. For all we know she could have been a Wildling magic user of some sort. This story has been passed down long enough that she could have been a CotF and the story changed enough that the truth was forgotten. We have never even seen or heard of a female Other in any context outside of this story. And we hear of human women mating with Other men, never the other way around. (Not sure I believe in half human half Other children because the Others and CotF (in my opinion at least) are different enough from Humans that I don't think inter-species mating is possible. But you know, MAGIC.)

Secondly, I agree that there is more to the Others than we currently know. History is written by the winners and after 8,000 years I'm sure the stories are distorted, especially since the first men didn't have a written language (but did have hieroglyphics) and most their history was probably passed down orally and then written down more recently in history. GRRM has pretty well established that people are not black and white, good and evil. The argument can be made that the Others aren't human, but neither are the CotF and clearly they are shades of grey as well so there is no reason to think the Others aren't. However, the human sacrifice and necromancy seem to heavily imply that they are more "evil" in regards to their treatment of humans, but there could be a reason for this that we don't know about yet as part of their culture, biology, or magic. Afterall, I'm sure the Gazelle thinks the Lion is evil.

As for their intelligence they have to have some. They used Wights to try and attack the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, which clearly had to have some planning involved. Had they succeeded this would have caused a lot of chaos at the Wall that surely would have been to their advantage. And they way they fight with their ice weapons sounds pretty practiced. Not to mention the work/magic that has to go into creating the weapons themselves.

[Othersrule]

I have been reading a long time, but never post, just lurking. Read all the books, even the Dunk and Egg. Several times. I think there is something to this theory. It's not either/or. Black and white. After all, what is the name of this? A SONG of Fire and Ice. A song is a harmony, a balance. So, how can the Others be all bad or all good anymore than the humans are all good or all bad? Like the OP said, the Native Americans weren't the ruthless savages that they were depicted to be, even though there were some violent Native Americans. And the Americans weren't all the noble conquering heros they are depicted to be either. It's a bittersweet story, just as GRRM said.

[Dicer]

It may appeal to fantasy fans, but not to the huge number of us who're attracted to the series precisely because it subverts standard fantasy.

Well, GRRM cannot please everyone. There are always going to be readers who will end up being disappointed whatever the ending is. And no matter how you look at it the books belong in the fantasy genre and have several of the cliches and tropes of standard fantasy in it.

"Subverting Expectations" does not mean flipping the entire series on its head in the last book.

I agree.

[mankytoes]

"Subverting Expectations" does not mean flipping the entire series on its head in the last book.

But why would the Others being interesting, cultured and morally grey, instead of one dimensional pure evil, turn everything on its head? You've still got the battle with the Westerosi.

In fact, this thread should show you a lot of

people expect this sort of development, so it wouldn't turn it on its head for us.

In any case, why are things being turned on their head neccessarily a bad thing? The beheading of Ned turned things on it's head (unintentional poetry there).

[mankytoes]

Well, GRRM cannot please everyone. There are always going to be readers who will end up being disappointed whatever the ending is. And no matter how you look at it the books belong in the fantasy genre and have several of the cliches and tropes of standard fantasy in it.

I agree.

True, but, for all of the series, I've read comparisons with Lord of the Rings, including from George Martin. It's left me convinced he's not doing "good v evil". I mean Dany's character, for example, is brilliantly controversial, as the forum shows. If she's just fighting evil in the

finale, all that ambiguity and character development will be pretty much wasted. Plus, humanity is clearly not "good" in these books, so that dynamic wouldn't fit the story.

[shk12344]

But why would the Others being interesting, cultured and morally grey, instead of one dimensional pure evil, turn everything on its head? You've still got the battle with the Westerosi.

In fact, this thread should show you a lot of

people expect this sort of development, so it wouldn't turn it on its head for us.

In any case, why are things being turned on their head neccessarily a bad thing? The beheading of Ned turned things on it's head (unintentional poetry there).

For five books, the Others have been portrayed as the ULTIMATE EVIL beings. They kill any men, women and children and turn them into zombies to fight against their enemies. There is nothing in the books that suggest they are misunderstood or capable of any compassion.

Again, it would be a horrible writing if in the last two books the Others are transformed into some noble being who happens to have very good reason to kill innocent babies and turn them into walking killing machine.

I don't expect GRRM to condone genocide of Wildlings and First Men.

[Dicer]

True, but, for all of the series, I've read comparisons with Lord of the Rings, including from George Martin. It's left me convinced he's not doing "good v evil". I mean Dany's character, for example, is brilliantly controversial, as the forum shows. If she's just fighting evil in the

finale, all that ambiguity and character development will be pretty much wasted. Plus, humanity is clearly not "good" in these books, so that dynamic wouldn't fit the story.

Sometimes evil is just evil. There does not have to be some deep reason for why rapists and serial killers do the things they do. The Others who were introduced in the prologue of the very first book have been clearly defined as evil so far: Killing babies, making wights etc. I don't need there to be justifications for their actions for me to find the Others interesting. They are a major threat to mankind and the people of Westeros have to find it in themselves to try to put aside their differences and band together to face this threat. That's going to be the interesting part.

I don't see Dany losing any of her ambiguity or complexity if she takes part in the fight against the Others.

And for the record, I love Lord of the Rings. Tolkien was an amazing writer. I think a huge number of readers enjoy ASOIAF because it's a fantasy series and not just because GRRM subverts tropes or whatever. When did enjoying fantasy or just fantasy in general start to become an insult around these parts?

[BobBob]

No, killing free folk villagers and raising them as their undead servants isn't what "good guys" would do no matter the situation. If the Others are fighting to take back their lands sure I can understand that, the First Men, despite being the first humans to inhabit Westeros were still outsiders and slowly took over their homes. So you can feel some sympathy for them, but at the end of the day they still threaten the realms of men so you're on the fence about who to support.

[mankytoes]

Sometimes evil is just evil. There does not have to be some deep reason for why rapists and serial killers do the things they do. The Others who were introduced in the prologue of the very first book have been clearly defined as evil so far: Killing babies, making wights etc. I don't need there to be justifications for their actions for me to find the Others interesting. They are a major threat to mankind and the people of Westeros have to find it in themselves to try to put aside their differences and band together to face this threat. That's going to be the interesting part.

I don't see Dany losing any of her ambiguity or complexity if she takes part in the fight against the Others.

And for the record, I love Lord of the Rings. Tolkien was an amazing writer. I think a huge number of readers enjoy ASOIAF because it's a fantasy series and not just because GRRM subverts tropes or whatever. When did enjoying fantasy or just fantasy in general start to become an insult around these parts?

There are rapists and serial killers, but no rapist/serial killer races or species.

Is making wights evil? Morally suspect, sure, but they're just a weapon that offends our sensibilities about death. And we haven't seen any Others kill babies.

You've missed my point, I'm not slagging off Tolkien, and neither is Martin. But this isn't Lord of the Rings, it's very different. I'm not saying better, just fundamentally different. And if the Others are just pure evil, and our heroes have to fight them, it's going that way. I don't see how that can happen and the very things that make this series distinguished be preserved.

[mankytoes]

No, killing free folk villagers and raising them as their undead servants isn't what "good guys" would do no matter the situation. If the Others are fighting to take back their lands sure I can understand that, the First Men, despite being the first humans to inhabit Westeros were still outsiders and slowly took over their homes. So you can feel some sympathy for them, but at the end of the day they still threaten the realms of men so you're on the fence about who to support.

They haven't genocided the free folk, have they? Why not?

[shk12344]

They haven't genocided the free folk, have they? Why not?

So Wildlings are moving southward just because of weather??

There are clear cases of what we would call genocide happening in Storm of Swords where women and children are killed and then turned into wights.

[TheMysteriousOne]

The Others are evil from a human perspective, but I'm pretty sure that if we put ourselves in their shoes, we'd realize that humanity can be/ is just as 'evil' as the Others. The Others kill people: men, women and children without any thought, and that is abominable and atrocious. However, most humans kill and eat animals, including their young and unborn, without a second thought. The Others are supposedly fighting and slaughtering people for selfish gain. Do humans do any differently? We use animal skin for clothing and material, we have subjugated and forcefully domesticated many species solely for our own benefit, pleasure and entertainment. We even commit atrocities against each other.

Come to think of it, I'm sure that if we compared humans and the Others objectively, we'd see that people are worse, IMO. It is simply all about perspective.

[shk12344]

The Others are evil from a human perspective, but I'm pretty sure that if we put ourselves in their shoes, we'd realize that humanity can be/ is just as 'evil' as the Others. The Others kill people: men, women and children without any thought, and that is abominable and atrocious. However, most humans kill and eat animals, including their young and unborn, without a second thought. The Others are supposedly fighting and slaughtering people for selfish gain. Do humans do any differently? We use animal skin for clothing and material, we have subjugated and forcefully domesticated many species solely for our own benefit, pleasure and entertainment. We even commit atrocities against each other.

Come to think of it, I'm sure that if we compared humans and the Others objectively, we'd see that people are worse, IMO. It is simply all about perspective.

As a writer, GRRM seemed to be obsessed with all things bacon, therefore GRRM doesn't strike me as a tree hugging, vegan type. I don't see GRRM equating death of humans at the hands of the Others with death of animals for human consumption.

[Ludd]

I think the whole point of the story is that BOTH ice and fire are "evil" if not in balance. Life as we know it - plants and animals cannot survive in a world made of ice, nor in a world made of fire. it is not so much a question of good and evil, just simply the forces cannot live in harmony

I do NOT think the story is ice versus fire but rather ice and fire versus life as we know it.

I expect Jon to fight both Dany AND the Others.

To some extent if this is the story of Ragnarok as I believe, then we will see attacks on Westeros from:

1. Ice Giants and the creatures from Hel (daughter of Loki),

2. fierce destructive earthquakes and Tsunamis brought on by the horn (Jorumen the giant snake , son of Loki)

3. Fenrir the fierce wolf (not sure who this is but I fear it is Rickon and the Skagosi

4. Sea monsters ie the Euron and the Ironborn

5. Loki Himself - this is either Theon or Little Finger

6. Fire demons - Suti ie Dany and her dragons.

Now 1, and 4 have already started and 2 and 6 clearly about to happen.

Because it is not quite clear which forces represents Fenrir and Loki there are some questions.

I think there will be two sides

Stannis (Thor) who will fight and deafeat the Ironborn but will die in the process

Jon (Heimdall) who will fight Loki (either LF or Theon)

BR (Odin) who will be killed by the Giant wolf (possibly Rickon)

Tyrion (Tyr) will fight the Hound (Sandor) perhaps as part of a Sansa led attack

??? Freyr will be destroyed by Dany ie the green and fertile lands

I expect Bran, and Gendry to survive. Not sure who else,