White walkers are Jon's army

[I'm the Party Pooper]

Possibly. But for all we know, they had good reason to do that. As you say yourself, those that don't want to be conquered by an "enemy" or force that's encroaching on them will make war and will be depicted as the bad guys.

And it's nice to agree on something.

So, since we agreed that evilness has nothing to do with being enemies, and we have textual proof that white walkers are an enemy.. now we have some ground for me to ask you again how do you imagine that Jon Snow will come at the head of his enemy army.

note: I actually tried to not tie anyone to "good/evil" labels, indeed I don't believe these are well founded in real world.

Daenerys is depicted as evil by the Ghiscari, and she - before marrying hizdar - had a very black/white view of her enemies as well. That is natural, although it doesn't make any of the two sides less or more "evil".

What is truly important in a world setting like this isn't the good/evil alignment, but rather the collimation of interests.

@butterpumps:

My apologies, it's difficult to keep track of every one specific argumentation here, I might have missinterpreted the things here.

I believe that it's what they choose to do that decides whether or not they are enemy. So far they have killed human beings, and the latter ones are fleeing south for this reason.

If they ever decide to change politics, this might well change things a lot. But some things can't simply be forgotten, it ain't like the day before u kill wildlings and the day after you seal an alliance agreement without having a very good reason/explanation for that. One may wonder why trusting them as allies today when they might go back killing humans later on.

[PrettyPig]

Around 1980, Martin wrote a children's story called The Ice Dragon. It's set in the same world as ASOIAF. If there are fire dragons, it's good bet there's an ice dragon. The wildlings even named a constellation after it.

Let me rephrase. Ice and fire (ie, what we call Rh'llor and the Great Other) are forces of nature.

The Targs believe that their dragons are fire made flesh. Ice and fire are mirror images of each other, so what goes for the forces of fire must be true for the forces of ice: that is, the Others are ice made flesh. Dany says to herself near the end of Dance that Drogon "is fire made flesh...and so am I." A dangerous position to take, IMO, equating yourself with a god. That's the Targ madness.

What I'm trying to say is that the Great Other and Rh'llor don't actually exist. They're just names given for natural forces, just as we still name things today.

I'm not so sure it's going to be Jon joining the white walkers. I lean towards Bran doing that. I see this going one of two ways: Either it will be Jon; or it will be Bran vs. Dany with Jon in the middle. If R=L=J is true, then Ice and fire meet in him. He's both ice and fire.

These are my thoughts as well. ASOIAF is about duality: geographical (north/south, Westeros/Essos), elemental (fire/ice), religious (gods old & new), spiritual (Starks/wolves & Targs/dragons), perceptual (black/white), and even the inherent nature of man (good/evil). It makes total sense to have two magical/mythical forces acting as Grand Representatives of an grand overarching duality. However, GRRM seems to make the characters themselves the exception to the duality rule, saying nope, people are not going to be so clear-cut as to which side they will embrace; people are multidimensional and "grey" - hence the moral ambiguity and constant interpersonal flux of characters like Jaime, the Hound, etc.

We have one giant Hegelian Dialectic running in the background, with all of these elements now coming into conflict with each other after a long period of synthesis/stasis. We also now see the Stark kids really embracing the greyness of their character, and GRRM has peppered the series with examples of conflict within families fighting for one banner or another, and even fighting each other under their own banner, so I take this as a prelude to a large final conflict between those who have been established as main protagonists....including Jon and Bran.

IMO Bran is going to go one direction, and Jon another. It is not clear which, if any, side is "right" in this final conflict, but I totally believe that at least two members of the Stark clan will be on opposing ends of the spectrum and face off against one another. To add the bittersweet element, only one of them will make it through.

Also, in total giddy fangirl dream, there will be warging of an ice dragon!!! :bliss

[butterbumps!]

@butterpumps:

My apologies, it's difficult to keep track of every one specific argumentation here, I might have missed interpreted the things here.

I believe that it's what they choose to do that decides whether or not they are enemy. So far they have killed human beings that for that reason are running south.

If they ever decide to change politics, this might well change things a lot. But some things can't simply forgotten, it ain't like the day before u kill wildlings and the day after you seal a peace and alliance agreement without having a very good reason for that.

oh, no problem, it looked like something got crossed. I do fundamentally agree with you that "enemy" =/= "evil," and I think Martin's making this point multiply. That the books are structured as POVs in conflict really reinforces the point you're making about this.

I think the fact that the Others don't seem to be integrated in human culture (or we haven't seen it yet) the way the Reds are goes a long way in setting up the difference in our perception as them as fundamentally in conflict with humans. And what we do see of human-Other contact definitely suggests an incompatibility there.

I'm personally very cautious about whether the Others are truly "enemy," in part because I rather wonder if some of those ancient stories of "heroes" might actually be about men who practiced ice magic, if not "notable" Others themselves (I'm thinking of Symeon Star Eyes, for example. Potentially Bran the Builder, since he's the one who apparently built the Wall-- made of magic and ice). I tend to think there's a chance the Starks weren't always worshippers of the old gods, and that they might actually be the ones who originated ice magic (and by extension, the Others), the way Valyrians mastered fire and dragons. I'm very curious what they're actually after.

I think the Reds are very curious, because although they appear integrated in human culture, they too have a very "us versus them" mentality, that I think implies a similar incompatibility if empowered to mobilize, as looks like may happen.

[Ice Queen]

Well, there's no confirmation that AAR and the PtwP are the same person, so PtwP is ostensibly open for now.

Actually, they are one and the same.

Start at 7:00.

Mel and Aemon used both terms interchangeably, so there is textual support for the idea already.

But, since you're "twisting my arm," let's talk about the Boltons! (lol, I'm probably the poster on here who needs the least prompting on this topic. people are probably rolling their eyes right now.)

I'm curious about both the dearth of female Boltons and female Others. We have the Night's Queen, but I'm not fully sure if she was an Other, or a reanimated corpse. I've seen compelling arguments for both sides, though I tend to argue the corpse angle.

What is really interesting in light of this apparent dearth is that both WW and Boltons make a habit of hunting down women to mate with. Old Nan's tales talk about how the Others would hunt wildling women and make "terrible, half human babies" with them. Hunting down women in the forests to rape them is basically the Bolton family tradition, and Ramsay-- a child conceived thusly-- is the son Roose chose. Whether there's a literal connection there, or just motif, it seems significant to me.

Could not agree with you more. And the Night's King hunts down his Queen in exactly the same way. I still think the NK was a Stark, but I don't rule out that it was a Bolton. Or possibly the Boltons were born of that line. And I have to wonder if Craster was as well.

If the Night's Queen was a Corpse Bride, for all we know she may have even been a woman the NK/LH loved and who died.

The point I was making was 2 part: 1. that they might not actually be alien (which the implication that they may a lot more "rounded" and have some kind of rationale for what they're doing that might seem not entirely unreasonable from a certain POV), and 2. given their possible likeness to the Reds, would that also apply to them?

As I said upthread, I think it's pretty funny that people call the Others the evil ones (mentioning that they have a culture and humanlike traits in the process) without 1) seeing the exact same traits and actions in the Reds; and 2) wondering whether they might have a reason for what they're doing.

Edited to fix formatting.

[butterbumps!]

[Ice Queen]

And it's nice to agree on something.

So, since we agreed that evilness has nothing to do with being enemies, and we have textual proof that white walkers are an enemy.. now we have some ground for me to ask you again how do you imagine that Jon Snow will come at the head of his enemy army.

I don't think it's going to be Jon. I think it will be Bran.

[Ice Queen]

I know that video. Martin's speaking from the POV of someone who worships R'hllor. The Reds use the term "prince that was promised" as a way of describing the second coming of their messiah. Since Martin's speaking from the POV of someone who worships R'hllor, that's not really independent confirmation that the PtwP as described by the Woods Witch is truly synonymous with AAR.

Okay, that's reasonable. But then the question comes up: how does someone from Asshai know about a legend from clear across the world? The Easterners have Azor Ahai, the Valyrians the PtwP, and the Westerosi The Last Hero.

They're just retellings of the same story.

[I'm the Party Pooper]

I'm personally very cautious about whether the Others are truly "enemy," in part because I rather wonder if some of those ancient stories of "heroes" might actually be about men who..

This is pretty reasonable. When I do frame them as enemies I do it on the basis of the hostile guerrilla actions they have taken onto the wildlings/nightwatch in the last months only.

This of course means they are acting as enemies, not that they are inherently enemies. There is very well ground for Grrm to expand their own background and create occasions for convergence of interests that is well beyond anything imaginable now. Only, right now this is fan fiction and has no textual evidence.

The unreliability of ancient myths works in both ways in fact, and leaves space only for speculation.. anything and everything might be misleading..

I don't know, I feel like it would be very much completely subverting anything provided till now to have humans fight at the same side of white walkers and wights, unless u frame these humans as hostile to their own race/country

[PrettyPig]

Okay, that's reasonable. But then the question comes up: how does someone from Asshai know about a legend from clear across the world? The Easterners have Azor Ahai, the Valyrians the PtwP, and the Westerosi The Last Hero.

They're just retellings of the same story.

It's the perfect example of cultural invention/diffusion. One of the major tenets of anthropological theory is that all cultures, regardless of size or period of existence, share certain elements - a creation myth/hero myth surrounding their superstructure (religion) is one of them. All of the Planetos myths may trace back to a single point of origin (a religious mitochondrial "Aeve", if you will), but as with major religions of Earth they have evolved into unique superstructures while still retaining the element of origin.

I mean, when you think about it, the woods witch that gave the PtwP prophecy to Jaehaerys was a CotF. Why would a CotF have any concern whatsoever with Valyrian legend - and more importantly, why would Targaryens, followers of the Seven, give a damn about a prophecy given to them by a woods witch? Because it has shared elements and magic from a common source.

[butterbumps!]

Okay, that's reasonable. But then the question comes up: how does someone from Asshai know about a legend from clear across the world? The Easterners have Azor Ahai, the Valyrians the PtwP, and the Westerosi The Last Hero.

They're just retellings of the same story.

Oh, first, I should have said this in my last response. I agreed with your comments, and wanted to add that it just so happens that Reek 1.0 was into necrophilia. It's not clear whether Reek (birth name Heke) was a Bolton (I have suspicions about whether he might have been another bastard claimed by Roose), but it sets up an opening there to the "corpse queen," at least in terms of language used.

On this point, I'm not truly sure if they actually all do invoke the same story. "Light and darkness" are the most universal terms humans use in their myth telling, and describe almost anything. There's literal light, but also "darkness" of oppression, ages of enlightenment, "light" of truth, and so forth. For example, there was an historic "darkness" in Essos thousands of years ago: Ghiscari oppression over the Valyrians, who were similar to the Lhazarene. But they harnessed dragons and overthrew their oppressors, becoming another type of oppressive darkness despite their age of "enlightnemnt." There's a lot I can say on this subject, but I wonder if it would be too off-topic here that the OP would mind.

This is pretty reasonable. When I do frame them as enemies I do it on the basis of the hostile guerrilla actions they have taken onto the wildlings/nightwatch in the last months only.

This of course means they are acting as enemies, not that they are inherently enemies. There is very well ground for Grrm to expand their own background and create occasions for convergence of interests that is well beyond anything imaginable now. Only, right now this is fan fiction and has no textual evidence.

The unreliability of ancient myths works in both ways in fact, and leaves space only for speculation.. anything and everything might be misleading..

I don't know, I feel like it would be very much completely subverting anything provided till now to have humans fight at the same side of white walkers and wights, unless u frame these humans as hostile to their own race/country

Yea-- I think what you're saying is completely reasonable. Based on the actions we see, there appears to be an incompatibility with humans, and an actual antagonism on the part of the Others. As long as you're not precluding the possibility that there might be something else going on, or that such apparent antagonism might not be what they're truly after-- and it appears you're not-- then we don't disagree.

But I don't think it's fair to call what I outlined "fan fiction." I can lay out textual arguments for my suspicions, and if I have time, I will. It's speculative, admittedly "crackpot," but not anything that doesn't stem from the text and follow logically if we look at these events from an unconventional angle. I mean, even just starting with the Stark House association: ice. The old gods are not "ice." Far from it. So there's something else there that's giving them this association.

I don't think it would subvert anything. In fact, I think the idea of the Others as having no relation to humans-- either in composition or ally, and therefore, completely alien-- would upend the rest of the story. Are the Red necessarily hostile to their own species?

Or the better question: are all these Westerosi hostile to their own species, or is what we see different POVs in conflict (some more "right" than others admittedly)? I'm pretty sure the toll on human life by other humans has exceeded anything brought by ice or fire yet. Exponentially.

[I'm the Party Pooper]

But I don't think it's fair to call what I outlined "fan fiction." I can lay out textual arguments for my suspicions, and if I have time, I will. It's speculative, admittedly "crackpot," but not anything that doesn't stem from the text and follow logically if we look at these events from an unconventional angle. I mean, even just starting with the Stark House association: ice. The old gods are not "ice." Far from it. So there's something else there that's giving them this association.

I don't think it would subvert anything. In fact, I think the idea of the Others as having no relation to humans-- either in composition or ally, and therefore, completely alien-- would upend the rest of the story. Are the Red necessarily hostile to their own species?

Or the better question: are all these Westerosi hostile to their own species, or is what we see different POVs in conflict (some more "right" than others admittedly)? I'm pretty sure the toll on human life by other humans has exceeded anything brought by ice or fire yet. Exponentially.

Well, I sincerely apologise, I didn't mean to offend. To my excuse, I don't posses an high level fluency in English language, so I might have used an adjective with a shade of meaning I did not fully understand.

I must say I have no idea how to answer to your question in this moment, the religious/magical contraposition in ASOIAF it's still something that I haven't figured out well.

[butterbumps!]

Well, I sincerely apologise, I didn't mean to offend. To my excuse, I don't posses an high level fluency in English language, so I might have used an adjective with a meaning I did not intend.

I must say I have no idea how to answer to your question in this moment, the religious/magical contraposition in ASOIAF it's still something that I haven't figured out well.

Oh, no, don't worry about it-- I knew there was a slight miscommunication happening. It's more that I wanted to say that it was something I'd questioned from the text itself. Definitely "crackpot" territory because it takes an unorthodox line of questioning to get there.

If it puts this into a different framework, I tend to approach the game and song as being essentially the same, with no separation. As in, I don't think the "game of thrones" and the "song of ice and fire" are actually separate. I think both are about power struggles between "interest groups," and magic and politics invariably intersect. I think the magic applies a super-charged form of weaponry to the players of the game, raising the stakes-- how did Valyria become an Empire in the first place? What are the Reds in Volantis looking to Dany's dragons to accomplish? How did Aegon conquer Westeros? What was the effect of Mel's shadowbabies? Why was Varamyr worhsipped as a god and given offerings by his surrounding villagers? I don't think ice will be any different. I think the magic, in human hands, raises the stakes of the power game to an existential level, but at the end of the day, I think it does come down to a "game" of dominance and power.

[Ice Queen]

It's the perfect example of cultural invention/diffusion. One of the major tenets of anthropological theory is that all cultures, regardless of size or period of existence, share certain elements - a creation myth/hero myth surrounding their superstructure (religion) is one of them. All of the Planetos myths may trace back to a single point of origin (a religious mitochondrial "Aeve", if you will), but as with major religions of Earth they have evolved into unique superstructures while still retaining the element of origin.

I mean, when you think about it, the woods witch that gave the PtwP prophecy to Jaehaerys was a CotF. Why would a CotF have any concern whatsoever with Valyrian legend - and more importantly, why would Targaryens, followers of the Seven, give a damn about a prophecy given to them by a woods witch? Because it has shared elements and magic from a common source.

Agree. It's the same in ASOIAF itself--as I said upthread, even the "army of the undead" motif is spread across cultures and has been around for thousands of years, stemming from a common source so far back in time we may never know exactly where it came from. And yet we still tell stories about it. And that's why these stories are so appealing: they speak to us on a level we all understand. Campbell and Jung had it right, and ASOIAF taps right into that, as did LOTR, Star Wars, even Harry Potter.

[Ice Queen]

I don't know, I feel like it would be very much completely subverting anything provided till now to have humans fight at the same side of white walkers and wights, unless u frame these humans as hostile to their own race/country

No, you're still equating the dragons/Dany with "good". It's a false dichotomy.

[I'm the Party Pooper]

No, you're still equating the dragons/Dany with "good". It's a false dichotomy.

Stop here.

Never equated Daenerys with good.

I didn't even mention her, in my own argumentation except to answer a side question.

I said: white walkers are performing hostile guerilla to the nightwatch and to the wildlings in the last months, the latter ones are sided with Jon Snow, so I don't see how - right now - white walkers don't qualify as enemies to him and, standing these conditions, how on earth is he supposed to lead them instead.

Nowhere here I called anyone good or bad, nowhere here I mentioned dragons, Daenerys or other stuff.

It's your assumption that I give for granted that Jon is on the same side of Daenerys, because you assume she is an enemy of white walkers as well.

But I said nothing on this. Absolutely nothing.

I identify human side as the one currently living in Westeros and being threatened or apparently attacked by white walkers, at least for what regards the only two communities that have met them till now. No more, no less.

Please, at least be so courteous and polite to read through the discussion as a whole. Or pin point where I exactly worded what you summarised in such a way.

Thank You.

[Ice Queen]

Stop here.

Never equated Daenerys with good.

I didn't even mention her, in my own argumentation except to answer a side question.

I said: white walkers are performing hostile guerilla to the nightwatch and to the wildlings in the last months, the latter ones are sided with Jon Snow, so I don't see how - right now - white walkers don't qualify as enemies to him and, standing these conditions, how on earth is he supposed to lead them instead.

Nowhere here I called anyone good or bad, nowhere here I mentioned dragons, Daenerys or other stuff.

It's your assumption that I give for granted that Jon is on the same side of Daenerys, because you assume she is an enemy of white walkers as well.

But I said nothing on this. Absolutely nothing.

I identify human side as the one currently living in Westeros and being threatened or apparently attacked by white walkers, at least for what regards the only two communities that have met them till now. No more, no less.

Please, at least be so courteous and polite to read through the discussion as a whole. Or pin point where I exactly worded what you summarised in such a way.

Thank You.

What you said was that people who would fight on the side of the Others/WW were hostile to their own people/country, which implies that the other side (fire and dragons represented by Dany) are therefore good.

I never said, nor did I imply, that you said Jon was on Dany's side. I don't think anyone else did either.

I've been reading the discussion as a whole, thanks. Maybe we're just having a miscommunication here.

[rondo has three heads]

I could see Jon interacting with the Others and learning more about them, but why would he give them control of the North? That'd be unusual.

[I'm the Party Pooper]

What you said was that people who would fight on the side of the Others/WW were hostile to their own people/country, which implies that the other side (fire and dragons represented by Dany) are therefore good.

I never said, nor did I imply, that you said Jon was on Dany's side. I don't think anyone else did either.

I've been reading the discussion as a whole, thanks. Maybe we're just having a miscommunication here.

I'm sorry but you are misinterpreting my own words.

First of all, hostile does by no means mean evil and being on human side does by no mean being good side. Might very well be humans are unaware to be on the "evil" side, but still have no choice like go for it or get wiped out.

And of course if right now White Walkers are Killing human beings in the night watch and in the wildlings - according to got prologue and tormund's first hand witnesses - , how would you call them if not hostile to human beings? and what would be a human sided with them, and thus killing other humans for their own reasons/good, if not hostile to his own race or country?

Since when killing qualifies as being friendly? it's hostility. And it it's directed on the group of people you belong to, and Jon belongs among wildlings and night watch, then I am right to say he would be hostile to his own race/country. Period.

There is no Daenerys now anywhere to be seen, I'm sorry to delude you but white walkers are not attacking Daenerys nor the Dragons, they are slaying human beings, the very population of Westeros.

And I never once in my life said she is on the good or evil side. Her own interests are right now not aligned with nor against anyone there in the battlefield. Her position is not yet qualified on an universal level: is she the saviour or the curse?

I don't know, grrm hasn't written this part and I respectfully said nothing on it, so stop implying that being enemy of white walkers automatically results being on Daenerys side.

There can be more than two sides. For all I know human beings would have better lives in a world with no white walkers and no dragons and no magic.

Sorry to sound harsh, I'll calm myself down in a while. I don't have any ill to you, only I'm hot blooded on certain type of criticism :-P

[sj4iy]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say:

Dany/Jon = Good

White Walkers (Others) = Bad

I know it's not a fun theory, but it's what I'm sticking with.

[jobmartell]

Sure, why not.