The Slayer of Lies

[Mithras]

The succession is very tricky. Aerys II passed over Aegon (presumably Jon Snow, too, in the process) in favor of Viserys. After Rhaegar's death Viserys was next in line to the Iron Throne by the will of his father. Kings can name their heirs, and Great Councils also have recommended (in 101) and decided (in 233, presumably confirmed by the Hand, Lord Rivers) to give the throne to claimants with weaker claims.

Dany can now claim to be the chosen and named successor (Viserys III had named her Princess of Dragonstone) of the last rightful Targaryen king, who in turn was named by the last Targaryen king on the Iron Throne (Aerys II). Prince Aegon - if Rhaegar's son - was passed over by his grandfather and that is no secret. Dany isn't male which makes her position somewhat weaker, but Aegon may not even who he says he is so this is hard to figure out. Not to mention that Daenerys has dragons.

Or one can argue that Dany had Viserys killed by her husband so that her own children would inherit the IT, which makes her an accursed kinslayer and a Usurper. This way, those people can argue that Dany lost her claim to the IT forever with this taint. What will Dany do in opposition to this claim? Give everyone a copy of AGoT?

[Julia H.]

Agreed that the Song of Ice and Fire does not need to be a person. It can involve multiple persons. Or it can be many things in layers, a person, a war, a relation (as in Pact of Ice and Fire). And since that makes the title "song of ice and fire" a metaphor, I don't see why one needs to insist that ancient Valyrians were fire mages and ancient Starks were not Ice mages. Nor would I completely be affirmative of the latter, as after all someone built the wall, which contains magic.

Absolutely. Also, they have a sword called Ice, they have"Winter is coming" for House words, there is generally a lot of ice symbolism used with regard to the Starks.

Regarding the OP (I hope you don't mind if I steer the conversation back to it for a moment): I think it's a very elegant theory because it shows that all three "lie-visions" are centred around the same kind of "lie". I also like the idea that the lie in question pertains to the ancient prophecies of Azor Ahai /TPtWP rather than just who should take the IT. I absolutely love the idea that the "third lie" should concern Dany herself - that would probably be the most difficult lie to "slay" (and I'm not talking about committing suicide or anything similar). We do know that there are quite "impressive" things being preached about Dany at the moment - there are promises there that could easily win her new supporters, yet they are also promises that she would not know how to fulfil.

Having said that, I'm still not totally convinced of the meaning of the third vision. It would help if I could pinpoint what is symbolized by the tower image there. I agree that it does not have to refer to a literal tower... Of course, it may refer to something we haven't seen yet in the novel. But I do agree that the monster with wings and breathing shadow fire is a dragon image. If Dany does not recognize it as a dragon, it may indicate that the image depicts the dark / negative aspects of a dragon, something that Dany has not truly thought of yet. How old are her dragons at the moment when she has those visions? Aren't they cute little baby reptiles yet? Dany thinks of them as her children. If I remember correctly, it is only in ADwD that she first thinks of them as monsters... If she sees a monster dragon in her vision, it is not so surprising that she does not identify it with the baby dragons she knows and loves.

The "shadow fire" can mean a number of things. It may suggest something fake but not only that. Power is a shadow on a wall, and shadows are also associated with sorcery, the "dark side" of fire etc. The image may even refer to Dany's illusions regarding the past of her family: Stone dragon, Dragonstone, tower, Targaryens, monster... But I'm not sure how that would fit the theory that all three lies refer to Azor Ahai reborn / TPtWP, which I think is a great idea.

[Lord Varys]

Mithras,

LOL, that 'evidence' isn't going to convince your own grandmother even if you ask her nicely. You should really begin interpreting holy scriptures - the people doing that treat texts roughly in a similar manner.

But let's concede that Jon Snow is the Song of Ice and Fire for a moment. What does this even mean? How can a person be a song? A song is process, something that is sung, it is dependent on others singing or memorizing for it to exist. Do Lyanna and Rhaegar still sing? Come to think of it - the Children call themselves the Singers (those who sing the song of the earth). Does this mean that Jon Snow is somebody's puppet, dancing along the threads of the person(s) singing him?

Those questions have to be asked if you identify a person to a song. Not to mention that ice and fire should neutralize themselves in Jon Snow. If you combine ice and fire you usually will get lukewarm water - which is hardly a desirable result if you are fighting against ice demons.

If the series was about human politics only I actually could see Jon symbolizing some sort of compromise as a scion being descended from houses Targaryen and Stark - if the setting of the story had made the Starks and Targaryens mortal enemies throughout most of their history, vying for the same throne and kingdom (i.e. if the Starks and Targaryens were essentially the Blackfyres and the Targaryens). But that is not the case.

[Son of Man]

I can agree with the first two. I disagree with the OP's interpretation of the third lie. The third "interpretation" reads like a very desperate attempt by sweetsunray at trying to convince someone and himself that Dany is not Azor Ahai.

Dany's fulfillment of the "slayer of lies" role will not point to herself. She has never falsely represented herself to anyone. She's the real deal, the genuine article. George isn't a writer to try to fake out his readers. Exposing the third lie will not minimize Daenerys Targaryen in any way. There is not a single character in the novels that even comes close to being Azor Ahai except her. We are in the last third of the story. It is very unlikely that if AA has not been born by now that he/she will be reborn at the last minute.

[Isobel Harper]

Or one can argue that Dany had Viserys killed by her husband so that her own children would inherit the IT, which makes her an accursed kinslayer and a Usurper. This way, those people can argue that Dany lost her claim to the IT forever with this taint. What will Dany do in opposition to this claim? Give everyone a copy of AGoT?

That only happens in Space Balls! :P

[Julia H.]

I can agree with the first two. I disagree with the OP's interpretation of the third lie. The third "interpretation" reads like a very desperate attempt by sweetsunray at trying to convince someone and himself that Dany is not Azor Ahai.

Dany's fulfillment of the "slayer of lies" role will not point to herself. She has never falsely represented herself to anyone. She's the real deal, the genuine article. George isn't a writer to try to fake out his readers. Exposing the third lie will not minimize Daenerys Targaryen in any way. There is not a single character in the novels that even comes close to being Azor Ahai except her. We are in the last third of the story. It is very unlikely that if AA has not been born by now that he/she will be reborn at the last minute.

Well, that sounds as though someone had already read the last few novels...

The OP presents a thoughtful analysis, supported by a large number of quotes, and draws conclusions - conclusions which may or may not be the correct conclusions but are valid conclusions nevertheless, based on the analysis of the text - and then suddenly comes a post saying this or that will or will not happen without addressing any of the OP's actual arguments.

[sweetsunray]

Absolutely. Also, they have a sword called Ice, they have"Winter is coming" for House words, there is generally a lot of ice symbolism used with regard to the Starks.

Regarding the OP (I hope you don't mind if I steer the conversation back to it for a moment): I think it's a very elegant theory because it shows that all three "lie-visions" are centred around the same kind of "lie". I also like the idea that the lie in question pertains to the ancient prophecies of Azor Ahai /TPtWP rather than just who should take the IT. I absolutely love the idea that the "third lie" should concern Dany herself - that would probably be the most difficult lie to "slay" (and I'm not talking about committing suicide or anything similar). We do know that there are quite "impressive" things being preached about Dany at the moment - there are promises there that could easily win her new supporters, yet they are also promises that she would not know how to fulfil.

Having said that, I'm still not totally convinced of the meaning of the third vision. It would help if I could pinpoint what is symbolized by the tower image there. I agree that it does not have to refer to a literal tower... Of course, it may refer to something we haven't seen yet in the novel. But I do agree that the monster with wings and breathing shadow fire is a dragon image. If Dany does not recognize it as a dragon, it may indicate that the image depicts the dark / negative aspects of a dragon, something that Dany has not truly thought of yet. How old are her dragons at the moment when she has those visions? Aren't they cute little baby reptiles yet? Dany thinks of them as her children. If I remember correctly, it is only in ADwD that she first thinks of them as monsters... If she sees a monster dragon in her vision, it is not so surprising that she does not identify it with the baby dragons she knows and loves.

The "shadow fire" can mean a number of things. It may suggest something fake but not only that. Power is a shadow on a wall, and shadows are also associated with sorcery, the "dark side" of fire etc. The image may even refer to Dany's illusions regarding the past of her family: Stone dragon, Dragonstone, tower, Targaryens, monster... But I'm not sure how that would fit the theory that all three lies refer to Azor Ahai reborn / TPtWP, which I think is a great idea.

Thank you...

One of the fantasy series GRRM admires is that of Tad Williams' "Memory, Sorrow and Thorn". The series involve prophecies about 3 swords that need to be brought together. You and the protagonists believe it is necessary to stop the vengeful Ice Sidhe (a Sidhe king who lost everything and wishes to bring the world of man into darkness and endless winter) from being resurrected. But in fact the prophecy weren't written by someone who meant to stop it from happening, but actually bringing it about. And the characters (and most readers) do not realize it when it's too late.

Many readers try to theorize a similar subversion by GRRM by saying that Azor Ahai reborn/PtwP might be a bad guy/gal; that Jon will go to the Others' side, or Dany brings about destruction with her dragons... depending upon who they fancy to be the PtwP/Azor Ahai reborn. It's possible, but the only fully spelled out prophecies we directly see are those of the HotU, and so GRRMs misdirection and subversion must have its traces in it. The worded-prophecies without visions are too general to figure out GRRM's subversion. The "daughter of death" visions are about the past, so say nothing about the end game. That only leaves the "slayer of lies" visions and "bride of fire" visions to unlock GRRMs intended subversion. And when it comes to corrupting a mind and the reader with false ideas, expectations and chasing red herrings then the "slayer of lies" visions to me make the most sense. And from all the visions and purposes and titles given to Dany, the "slayer of lies" would imo have the most significance. The first 3 (daughte rof death) define how she came to be who she is, the last 3 define to whom she relates or will relate, the middle 3 define her purpose.

The stone beastie rising from the tower is the most neglected vision of all 9. It doesn't seem to fit. 8 of the 9 seem to depict a person: Viserys dying, Rheago never living to become the Stallion that mounts the world, Rhaegar dying, Stannis, Aegon, Drogo, a Greyjoy (or JonCon as some postulate) and Jon. A stone beastie rising from the tower doesn't seem to fit. Meanwhile seemingly Stannis seems to be about a throne pretender, Aegon about a throne pretender, so what does the stone winged fire breathing beastie rising from a tower got anythign to do with that? Since it doesn't seem to fit and is such a strange image, we all put it aside and think... well, we'll find out in later books, like we hope to find out the treasons and the husbands and loves of Dany.

Meanwhile we all know that the most important thing is the Others coming, more than the throne. The IT and game of thrones is the distraction, the red herring for the characters in-world. And we see the same red herring in the first two visions of the "slayer of lies" series. The key to unlock the lies is the last image that seems so weird and out of place.

So, the claim is "waking dragons out of stone". It's a strange grammatical construct.

1) If we take "dragons out of stone" that conjures the image of a "stone dragon". So, then that would lead to a simplification of "waking a stone dragon". The image that fits with waking is something that rises. So "a rising stone dragon". Do we see that in the vision? We do.

2) But if we for a moment drop "dragons" out of the sentence, we have "waking out stone". That conjures the image of something that rises out of either a stone building or surface. Do we see that in the vision? We do. A tower is made of stone. So a beastie rising out of a tower fits the second interpretation.

In other words, the vision combines both grammatical interpretations of the sentence "waking dragons out of stone". Of course we never actually see either of the two images happening: there are no "stone dragons" and we don't see "dragons rising from a stone tower" either. Certainly no in-world character has witnessed such a thing. Nor will we see it. And with the word use of "beast" GRRM makes clear it's about a dragon-beast, not about dragon-person. And yes, at the time Dany has the HotU prophecies, the dragons are cute little baby dragons that hop on your shoulder. They're not Balerions reborn yet.

But we actually do know that "waking dragons out of stone" has occurred. Dany woke baby dragons out of stone egss (not stone towers).

[sweetsunray]

I can agree with the first two. I disagree with the OP's interpretation of the third lie. The third "interpretation" reads like a very desperate attempt by sweetsunray at trying to convince someone and himself that Dany is not Azor Ahai.

Dany's fulfillment of the "slayer of lies" role will not point to herself. She has never falsely represented herself to anyone. She's the real deal, the genuine article. George isn't a writer to try to fake out his readers. Exposing the third lie will not minimize Daenerys Targaryen in any way. There is not a single character in the novels that even comes close to being Azor Ahai except her. We are in the last third of the story. It is very unlikely that if AA has not been born by now that he/she will be reborn at the last minute.

a) I'm a SHE (just hit my profile and you can see I pointed out my gender)

b ) I am perfectly willing to say that the third interpretation I make of the "slayer of lies" visions, do not necessarily exclude Dany from being Azor Ahai reborn/PtwP. But I argument the third vision reveals the claim that she is Azor Ahai reborn/PtwP "because she woke dragons out of stone eggs" is a lie, a false identifier.

I don't care whether Dany is AA or not. I don't care whether Jon is AA or not. I don't care whether Stannis is or Aegon. Someone is, and many are not. I'm an agnostic about it. The claim about "it must be Dany because of the dragons" is one that I treat with scepticism, because GRRM made the sources of that claim very very dubious. It is all of a sudden used in the affirmative, without any good source for it. It's pure conjecture. And since GRRM both has made comments about being careful regarding prophecies and has characters remind us of that, I look for subversion, red herrings and pushing for wrong assumptions being made in prophecies. The most elaborate prophecies we actually witness is the HotU one. So, we can count on it there being red herrings and treat them with utmost criticism.

And yes, I find textual evidence in the HotU lies series as a hint by GRRM to the reader to treat that claim with scepticism. For me the fact that arguments are being made as..."But Dany can't be shown a lie that applies to her" only proves how well GRRM has written the HotU visions and makes readers believe a lie. There is no rule, no declaration made to Dany or the reader that what Dany sees is only about people other than herself. In fact, the majority of the HotU prophecy is about her: the treasons she will know (and people have picked up on the idea, some of these treasons may be her doing the treason), the mounts she will ride, the deaths that define her, the men she'll be a bride of fire to. So, yes, it is very much possible that one of the lies she must slay is a lie regarding claims about her. It doesn't matter whether she does not make the claim herself. She's a slayer of "lies", not slayer of "liars".

It sounds to me you made your mind up who is AA, and reject the possible clues given by GRRM to caution you against it. Because you can't argue against it textually, you try to motivation argument.

[Ultima II]

The third lie is in reference to Lady Stoneheart. The smoking tower is one of Harrenhal's. The Shadow Fire is the fire that breathed life back into her. The lie is of Mel's creation. She's broadcasting this idea that fire is good, but dark is bad. The night is dark and full of terrors. The night is evil. Only light is good. When on the other hand, she goes around and makes shadow babies. There's a lot of lies and hypocrisy in Melisandre. Bloodraven contradicts and tells Bran not to be afraid of the dark.

So, Stoneheart is the beast breathing shadow fire. Takes flight simply means to flee. She will take refuge in Harrenhal and someone will set the place ablaze and forces her to flee. The shadow in reference to the fire could simply mean the source of the magic. Mel is from Asshai-by-the-Shadow. The fire magic that Thoros and Beric used were sourced and learned from Asshai. It is black magic.

I have also heard other ideas that it has something to do with the Stonemen of Skagos. Unusual creatures are said to inhabit Skagos. The lie is that the people there are cannibals. It's a lie they tell to keep people away from their island. They have a secret. Maybe a secret dragon that they've been caring for? Perhaps the Cannibal.

[sweetsunray]

I'll pick up the Aemon quote again

Xhondo's talk of dragons had almost seemed to restore the old man to himself. That night he ate every bite Sam put before him. "No one ever looked for a girl," he said. "It was a prince that was promised, not a princess. Rhaegar, I thought . . . the smoke was from the fire that devoured Summerhall on the day of his birth, the salt from the tears shed for those who died. He shared my belief when he was young, but later he became persuaded that it was his own son who fulfilled the prophecy, for a comet had been seen above King's Landing on the night Aegon was conceived, and Rhaegar was certain the bleeding star had to be a comet. What fools we were, who thought ourselves so wise! The error crept in from the translation. Dragons are neither male nor female, Barth saw the truth of that, but now one and now the other, as changeable as flame. The language misled us all for a thousand years. Daenerys is the one, born amidst salt and smoke. The dragons prove it."

So, we have Aemon stressing to us "watch out with translations" and "language is misleading". Sure, he's talking about prince/princess. But most significant is that he suddenly jumps to "dragons prove it", which harks back to the only aSoIaF reference made about AA or PtwP and dragons, Mel's unsourced statement "to wake dragons out of stone". And that statement has two grammatical interpretations, which we both see combined in the HotU stone dragon-beastie rising from a tower breathing shadow fire. The irony is that Aemon treats the prince/princess part of the prophecy with scepticism, but not the dragons part.

[Isobel Harper]

The third lie is in reference to Lady Stoneheart. The smoking tower is one of Harrenhal's. The Shadow Fire is the fire that breathed life back into her. The lie is of Mel's creation. She's broadcasting this idea that fire is good, but dark is bad. The night is dark and full of terrors. The night is evil. Only light is good. When on the other hand, she goes around and makes shadow babies. There's a lot of lies and hypocrisy in Melisandre. Bloodraven contradicts and tells Bran not to be afraid of the dark.

So, Stoneheart is the beast breathing shadow fire. Takes flight simply means to flee. She will take refuge in Harrenhal and someone will set the place ablaze and forces her to flee. The shadow in reference to the fire could simply mean the source of the magic. Mel is from Asshai-by-the-Shadow. The fire magic that Thoros and Beric used were sourced and learned from Asshai. It is black magic.

I have also heard other ideas that it has something to do with the Stonemen of Skagos. Unusual creatures are said to inhabit Skagos. The lie is that the people there are cannibals. It's a lie they tell to keep people away from their island. They have a secret. Maybe a secret dragon that they've been caring for? Perhaps the Cannibal.

The lie about "cannibals" to hide Cannibal. I'm not sure I see it occurring, but I like this idea! The Skagosi are also hiding Rickon, a warg. Perhaps it might refer to him in some way; Daenerys could be the one to reveal, for instance, that Rickon is still alive. ETA: There was a prediction up-thread about the "stone beast" referring to Littlefinger and/or Alayne Stone in some way. Revealing Rickon to be alive will essentially "slay" Sansa/Alayne's inheritance to the North that LF is trying to attain through Sansa, i.e. slay LF's plans. Additionally, Rickon revealing himself to the public could result in Sansa revealing herself as well, "slaying" the Alayne Stone.

Also, I don't recall there being Stonemen on Skagos; however, Skagos means "stone" in the Old Tongue.

[HoodedCrow]

Perhaps the big lie is that the Iron Throne is important compared to resting a truce with the Others.

[Wm Portnoy]

From a smoking tower, a stone beast takes flight breathing shadow fire

The best fit for smoking tower is Dragonstone. The stone beast is Shireen. Her greyscale will eventually turn her skin grey and hard. Mel sacrifices her to the flames. Just like Summer's vision, the smoke appears to look like a dragon. It is nothing more than that.

The need for the sacrifice is the lie.

[Julia H.]

But let's concede that Jon Snow is the Song of Ice and Fire for a moment. What does this even mean? How can a person be a song? A song is process, something that is sung, it is dependent on others singing or memorizing for it to exist. Do Lyanna and Rhaegar still sing? Come to think of it - the Children call themselves the Singers (those who sing the song of the earth). Does this mean that Jon Snow is somebody's puppet, dancing along the threads of the person(s) singing him?

Those questions have to be asked if you identify a person to a song. Not to mention that ice and fire should neutralize themselves in Jon Snow. If you combine ice and fire you usually will get lukewarm water - which is hardly a desirable result if you are fighting against ice demons.

If the series was about human politics only I actually could see Jon symbolizing some sort of compromise as a scion being descended from houses Targaryen and Stark - if the setting of the story had made the Starks and Targaryens mortal enemies throughout most of their history, vying for the same throne and kingdom (i.e. if the Starks and Targaryens were essentially the Blackfyres and the Targaryens). But that is not the case.

I think Jon is the Son of Ice and Fire and his is the Song of Ice and Fire. The "song" can be a real song, a story, or it can mean the song of weapons - it fits in with Jon either way. Regarding lukewarm water... if you translate lukewarm into actual temperature, you will get a degree where human life can thrive, which is an absolutely relevant aspect in the ASOIAF world, and water is also essential for life - so I don't see the problem with that.

For the "fire people" in the series, fire often seems to be an aggressive weapon (like wildfire or a dragon's fire) or a destructive force in some other ways (like the heat of the Dornish sun). Of course, they also use fire to cook, for example, so it is not always a destructive force, but is very often used in a destructive way. In the North, fire means life, as fire burning against the cold or as a defensive weapon against wights (i.e., the dead). Similarly, Ice in the North is often associated with death because of the extreme cold, but cf. also Ice as a greatsword, and, of course, there is the threat the Others represent, a great destructive force of ice. Admittedly, ice is also used defensively (the Wall), but then we are told that Ice preserves... so that still fits. In warmer climates, however, as you say, ice becomes water - an essential element of life. All this indicates, IMHO, that a balance of ice and fire is desirable, because then both elements can be used to support life, while the dominance of one or the other is dangerous and destructive. The song of Ice and Fire is not about the Iron Throne, it is about finding balance.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Why does the "stone beast breathing shadow fire" have to be a metaphor? The other two visions are rather literal and straightforward, if we accept that the blue-eyed-king is Stannis. Have you guys forgotten that this is fantasy series, with actual monsters and magic?

[sweetsunray]

Why does the "stone beast breathing shadow fire" have to be a metaphor? The other two visions are rather literal and straightforward, if we accept that the blue-eyed-king is Stannis. Have you guys forgotten that this is fantasy series, with actual monsters and magic?

The vision of Stannis is not completely literal: Stannis having no shadow is the metaphor. In fact, without the 'no shadow' metaphor nobody would be certain it is Stannis. Stannis is not the sole person with blue eyes in the series.

The vision of Aegon is even more of a metaphor: no actual person is shown, but a 'dragon', and not a literal dragon either, but a 'cloth dragon on poles'

The visions after the "stone beast" are even more metaphorical than the two that come before it. The only literal ones are the 3 of the past, the daughter of death visions.

So, basically we have - literal (Viserys), literal (Rhaego, what he would have been had he lived), literal, (Rhaegor), half metaphor (Stannis), metaphor (Aegon), ? (stone dragon beasty), metaphor (Drogo), metaphor (Euron Greyjoy imo), metaphor (Jon).

And with such a series you're saying, but there literally will be a stone dragon-beasty that breathes shadow fire rising from a smoking tower?

[Ramsay Gimp]

The "vision of Aegon" is not a metaphor, it's just a vision of people cheering his banner. Or Daenerys's banner.

And with such a series you're saying, but there literally will be a stone dragon-beasty that breathes shadow fire rising from a smoking tower?

This series had a shadow assassin crawl out of a woman's cooch, so yes I'm saying that.

[Lord Varys]

Julia H.,

if there were no Others soon attacking and possibly overwhelming everyone and everything in their path I'd agree that a balance between ice and fire is desirable. But not as things are right now. Humanity will need very extreme fire magic to survive the coming winter. We already see Thoros' success in converting people to his faith in the Riverlands simply because he can bring people back from the dead. How much more success will he - or other red priests - have if it turn out that the red priests' fire magic can keep the unnatural cold at bay.

If Jon Snow was embodying/symbolizing a balance between ice and fire he won't stand a chance against the Others, would he? This series does not suggest that we need some kind of mediator or understanding guy to sort out of the conflict between humanity and the Others. The Others don't even try to negotiate or talk to humanity.

It seems that the Others actually were the ones destroying a balance between the ice and fire if such a thing existed - the ancient oath the Reeds swear to the Starks includes 'by ice and fire', suggesting that the Children/First Men knew and practiced those types of magic.

[sweetsunray]

The "vision of Aegon" is not a metaphor, it's just a vision of people cheering his banner. Or Daenerys's banner.

This series had a shadow assassin crawl out of a woman's cooch, so yes I'm saying that.

1) It doesn't depict him, and yet it's about him. So, it's not literal, but a metaphor.

2) I didn't argue that in a fantasy novel we can't have a stone dragon like beast flying out of a smoking tower. I asked you that in that series of metaphors at that particular moment a literal one would make any sense? It doesnt.

[Mithras]

Julia H.,

if there were no Others soon attacking and possibly overwhelming everyone and everything in their path I'd agree that a balance between ice and fire is desirable. But not as things are right now. Humanity will need very extreme fire magic to survive the coming winter. We already see Thoros' success in converting people to his faith in the Riverlands simply because he can bring people back from the dead. How much more success will he - or other red priests - have if it turn out that the red priests' fire magic can keep the unnatural cold at bay.

If Jon Snow was embodying/symbolizing a balance between ice and fire he won't stand a chance against the Others, would he? This series does not suggest that we need some kind of mediator or understanding guy to sort out of the conflict between humanity and the Others. The Others don't even try to negotiate or talk to humanity.

It seems that the Others actually were the ones destroying a balance between the ice and fire if such a thing existed - the ancient oath the Reeds swear to the Starks includes 'by ice and fire', suggesting that the Children/First Men knew and practiced those types of magic.

I don't see the situation as you depicted here and there is no way to claim any of these without reading the unpublished books.