The Others & Evil: GRRM's Words

[butterbumps!]

My believability obstacle would be that I see no moral ambiguity or even a hint towards it in the books so far for the Others. I read the prologue differently. I see it as taunting. Not just how they interacted with Waymar but what they did with the wildling bodies. The battle at the Fist, the attack on Small Paul and Samwell, the attack on Bran and Hardhome, all of those seem pretty unambiguous. (I know we don't know what happened at Hardhome yet, but the letter does not bode well.)

 

This is still very confused.  

 

You can read the Others as totally nefarious, like you've done.   That interpretation can be supported by the text.

 

But the fact is, the alternate reading of the Others is also supported.   The text is fairly ambiguous regarding the Others at this point, and both interpretations can stand at the moment.

 

In light of that, a theoretical future development in which it becomes clear that the Others are morally ambiguous will have been supported by that alternative interpretation.  Just because you hadn't read it that way does not mean that it was not supported.   

 

 

 

But as a secondary curiosity, what if it comes to pass that, say, the Others are actually products of the precious Starks, functioning similarly to the way the dragons did in the Valyrian Empire (as tools of conquest and rule)?   What if they were created to stand up to even darker (or merely opposing) magics?    What if they're not actually opposed to humanity unilaterally?   I mean, there's a ton of possibilities in terms of what they are, why they exist, what they want, and so forth.    I guess, is part of your argument that it's impossible for them to be anything but an alien race of monsters intent on wiping out humanity?

 

 

Mithras

Did you miss the part where Royce was injured, then what appears to be a signal given, and they put him out of his misery?   

[William MK Stark]

He might not. 

 

GRRM has stated, that he is deliberately keeping the details of magic vague (like in LotR).

He might feel the same regarding the Others.

 

Lovecraft kept the Great Old Ones vague, and they were scarier.

Subsequent authors fleshed them out. Not so scary anymore.

 

The "otherness" of the Others will be lost when we read about Lord Frosty getting drunk on icewine and building a snow dick.

And he may. There are many ways to explain something without completely wiping away their mystery and otherworldliness. We know a lot of background of both mysterious heroes ( like Batman) and villains ( like Norman Bates ), and they remain dark and mysterious. The "otherness" is only lost if it is clumsily or unsatisfyingly given away in the cases  of Hannibal Lecter and Darth Vader. 

 

About Lovecraft, his stories were mostly horror, so keeping everything in the dark worked much better. ASoIaF is high fantasy/ drama epic, it's more important to provide believable world elements than to scare people. In addition, there is proof that GRRM can pull off horror even with things with detailed background.  We knew about the nature of scary things such as the stonemen, but that didn't make Tyrion's boat trip more pleasant. We've learnt much about the Red Priests and even have a Melisandre's PoV, it still doesn't make her giving birth to shadow babies or burning eagles out of the sky less terrifying. 

[Mithras]

Will heard their laughter, which does not communicate well in a possible mercy killing. It looks more like they were testing the sharpness of their blades on Waymar's body.

[William MK Stark]

Will heard their laughter, which does not communicate well in a possible mercy killing. It looks more like they were testing the sharpness of their blades on Waymar's body.

Will didn't understand a single word they said, and could have by all means mistaking different sounds as laughter. Even if they were laughter, how can you know that they were laughing at the killing itself, but not celebrating the duel just won ? I'm sure that everyone would be in a way happy having won a duel to the death. 

[butterbumps!]

Will heard their laughter, which does not communicate well in a possible mercy killing. It looks more like they were testing the sharpness of their blades on Waymar's body.

 

No, it does not look like they were testing the sharpness of their blades.   And I'm not suggesting that they can't also be assholes.  

 

But it's a very restrained killing that takes place, and it kind of has a knightly character to it:

• they all stay back and fight one-on-one
• there's no torture or extending out Royce's pain
• when Royce's weapon shatters, he's blinded, and no longer able to fight, it's noted that it's like a signal is given to make an end of it
• they advance on him and give him the coup de grace.

Yea, they laugh afterward (though we don't know at what).  But they're not depicted as wild or bloodthirsty or sadistic, and their actions can even be interpreted as kind of knightly.   And I think that's significant.

 

 

I think it's also worth pointing how deranged and maniacal the following Bran chapter would look if we didn't understand the language, if Bran wasn't making us sympathetic to the situation through his explanations of the law and NW desertion, and if we didn't immediately get Jon's words about Theon to realize that not everyone shared his bizarre amusement at kicking a decapitated head.

 

Because that's also a situation where there's a bunch of men standing around another man-- and a prone on this time, so it looks even more unfair from a distance-- a bunch of words are said, the prone man is clearly scared shitless, another man cuts his head off, and then a smiling man kicks it and laughs.  Imagine if we didn't have narration for that scene or understand the language, and if it was our only look at the Starks for a few books?

[kissdbyfire]

^^ A lot of this makes sense to me except the 'mercy killing' of Royce. I mean, Royce was on his knees, and blind in one eye with blood running down his face. He was defeated. A mercy killing would be for the WW who fought him to simply slit his throat. 

 

ETA: Tks, @BC, that was the quote I was looking for! 

[William MK Stark]

^^ A lot of this makes sense to me except the 'mercy killing' of Royce. I mean, Royce was on his knees, and blind in one eye with blood running down his face. He was defeated. A mercy killing would be for the WW who fought him to simply slit his throat. 

 

ETA: Tks, @BC, that was the quote I was looking for! 

We don't know their custom for mercy killing, it's entirely possible that their standard is for all those who witness a duel to finish off the loser quickly.

[butterbumps!]

^^ A lot of this makes sense to me except the 'mercy killing' of Royce. I mean, Royce was on his knees, and blind in one eye with blood running down his face. He was defeated. A mercy killing would be for the WW who fought him to simply slit his throat. 

oh I see what you mean.  Because it was an execution-by-group rather than a throat slice (or another "humane" move performed by a singular person).    Does the number of people performing the execution make a difference in terms of it being a "mercy kill" though?  It still seems humane in the sense that it was over very quickly, following a duel, defeat and signal.   And the fact that they didn't just leave him to die in agony also seems kind of meaningful.

 

but to be fair, the motivation behind the group coup de grace might not be about being humane or giving mercy.   for all we know, it could even be some kind of performative magic or sacrifice or something to that effect (for example, for all we know, getting blood on their swords might strengthen the magic or something like that, which is why more of them would get in on the final kill).   

[William MK Stark]

but to be fair, the motivation behind the group coup de grace might not be about being humane or giving mercy.   for all we know, it could even be some kind of performative magic or sacrifice or something to that effect (for example, for all we know, getting blood on their swords might strengthen the magic or something like that, which is why more of them would get in on the final kill).   

Interesting point, especially considering we've seen that blood can enhance a sword with fire, so why not the same with ice. 

[kissdbyfire]

oh I see what you mean.  Because it was an execution-by-group rather than a throat slice (or another "humane" move performed by a singular person).    Does the number of people performing the execution make a difference in terms of it being a "mercy kill" though?  It still seems humane in the sense that it was over very quickly, following a duel, defeat and signal.   And the fact that they didn't just leave him to die in agony also seems kind of meaningful.

 

but to be fair, the motivation behind the group coup de grace might not be about being humane.   for all we know, it could even be some kind of performative magic or sacrifice or something to that effect (for example, for all we know, getting blood on their swords might strengthen the magic or something like that, which is why more of them would get in on the final kill).   

 

Yes, all the WWs (6 or 5 + the one that actually fought Royce) looks like extreme overkill. I think it does have an impact on it being viewed as a 'mercy kill'. Mind you, it may turn out to have been just that. But when we look at the little info we do have - 6 WWs 'butchering' Royce,  the fact that they appear to be laughing... It doesn't point to a mercy kill imo. 
If it turns out to have been a mercy kill, I hope Martin gives us clues/foreshadowing into the WWs before revealing it as such - otherwise, it will feel cheap. 

 

And I agree, my take [at the mo] is that the killing of Royce is ritualistic somehow - and we won't fully understand it until more is revealed. 

But when the WWs close in for the kill as if a 'signal' had been given is exactly when blood wells between Royce's fingers.

[Knight Of Winter]

I much disagree with the OP here.

In addition to some points that have already been made - I'd add another one: impact on the "intrestigness" and even quality of the story. For which characters make better and more interesting villains/antagonists: multi-layered characters whose motivations, virtues and vices we can understand and even sympathize with (Varys, Tyrion, Jaime, Littlefinger, MMD...) or purely evil psychopathic monsters (Joffrey, Ramsay, Gregor...) ? Which out of these two make for a better story? It would seems awfully out of character for GRRM to present main antagonists as bunch of moustache-twirling villains.

 

Rather, I think it's a trick used by GRRM a few times already. Didn't wildlings seem like a bunch of savage murderers, rapists and barbarians until Jon actually got to spend some time with them and realized that they were actually not so different than other people (something Marsh&co. have trouble understanding). Didn't e.g. Jaime Lannister seem like a ruthless child-killing jerk until we got his POV and realized he's actually much more complex than that? GRRM stated that we'll get to see more of Others and Lands of Always Winter in WOW, and I'm eagerly awaiting for that.

 

As for Others' actions so far - dozens explanations could come to mind: maybe Others are peaceful, and the ones attacking humans are a small group of dissidents. Maybe they've been told of prophecy that AAR will slay their entire race, and they're just trying to stop it (much like MMD). Maybe they were the wronged side in their war against humanity and COTF - and now they're back for some payback. Maybe their entire race is dying dues to harsh conditions in LOAW, and they're forced to move south to survive. And each of them makes for a batter and more interesting motivation than "lets kill humanity for the lolz."

 

And OP has done nothing to change my mind, as it basically boils down to

 

GRRM applies greyness to humans (ok) +

Others are inhuman (ok so far)___
therefore greyness doesn't apply to Others (which is not how logic works)

 

[caravaggio]

Maybe some greyness will be written into the Others in the final two books, but as it stands I do not believe George has written or said anything about them that is supposed to be interpreted as anything other than that they are evil.

[kissdbyfire]

Maybe some greyness will be written into the Others in the final two books, but as it stands I do not believe George has written or said anything about them that is supposed to be interpreted as anything other than that they are evil.

 

There's remarkably little direct info on the WWs in the books, and only Will's PoV really paints them in an 'evil' light - butchery, laughter.

 

But Will may be an unreliable narrator here; because he is scared shitless watching the fight and sees Royce killed with the other WWs joining in for the kill he may understand it as 'cold butchery ' when it may have been something else. Even what he understands as laughter may not be exactly that. Or it could be laughter, but directed not at Royce. For instance, what if the WWs are laughing with relief when they realise Royce's blade is not VS? 

 

I am not saying any of this is true, only that it is possible. Bottom line is, we can't really know until we have more info.  

[caravaggio]

There's remarkably little direct info on the WWs in the books, and only Will's PoV really paints them in an 'evil' light - butchery, laughter.
 
But Will may be an unreliable narrator here; because he is scared shitless watching the fight and sees Royce killed with the other WWs joining in for the kill he may understand it as 'cold butchery ' when it may have been something else. Even what he understands as laughter may not be exactly that. Or it could be laughter, but directed not at Royce. For instance, what if the WWs are laughing with relief when they realise Royce's blade is not VS? 
 
I am not saying any of this is true, only that it is possible. Bottom line is, we can't really know until we have more info.

You are right that we don't have enough information. I'm just saying that I think George expects that the reader will take everything so far as the Others being evil.

[kissdbyfire]

You are right that we don't have enough information. I'm just saying that I think George expects that the reader will take everything so far as the Others being evil.

 

Why do you think that? I think Martin has written it in a way that doesn't make it clear either way. Think about it...

 

Let's assume you're right, let's assume, for argument's sake, that Martin wrote the WWs expecting readers to think they are evil. Why would he do that? What's the purpose of doing it? 

 

If they truly are 'evul monsters', why would he give it away on the prologue of the first book? 

 

And if they aren't, to write them as 'evul' just to have the reveal later that they aren't would be an ass pull, and I don't really think Martin would do that. 

 

ETA: regarding the last bit, of course it's different if there's hints/foreshadowing before the reveal.

[butterbumps!]

 

Yes, all the WWs (6 or 5 + the one that actually fought Royce) looks like extreme overkill. I think it does have an impact on it being viewed as a 'mercy kill'. Mind you, it may turn out to have been just that. But when we look at the little info we do have - 6 WWs 'butchering' Royce,  the fact that they appear to be laughing... It doesn't point to a mercy kill imo. 
If it turns out to have been a mercy kill, I hope Martin gives us clues/foreshadowing into the WWs before revealing it as such - otherwise, it will feel cheap. 

 

And I agree, my take [at the mo] is that the killing of Royce is ritualistic somehow - and we won't fully understand it until more is revealed. 

But when the WWs close in for the kill as if a 'signal' had been given is exactly when blood wells between Royce's fingers.

 

Well, I agree it's probably too much to call what was going on a "mercy kill."  Though, I'm not sure that anything we can observe of the execution precludes it being mercy.   Rather it's because it's assuming too much about the Others motives.

 

I think the laughter started after the group coup de grace (which kind of comes across to me like a firing squad or something), and even then, I can think of a few characters who'd laugh while performing a mercy kill (Jaime and Sandor come immediately to mind).  I don't think the number of killers necessarily detracts from the mercy idea.

 

The issue I had been originally trying to get at is that the killing was oddly humane, controlled, and almost as though it was following some kind of code, whether a code of honor, or ritual, or justice, or mercy or some other motivation.    But yea, mercy might not have been their actual motive, so calling it a "mercy kill" is probably too loaded a term for this.    

 

Is there a better term for it that doesn't presuppose motives?

[caravaggio]

Everything about the prolog screams horror to me.

 

Inexperienced commander doesn't listen to the experienced men about dangers.

Night is falling.

Experienced men are full of fear.

Gared and Will feeling something cold is watching them with malice and want nothing more than to ride home.

Dead wildlings, one even up a tree.

Then, all the dead people vanish.

The Others are spotted in the woods with ghost like descriptions.

The fight starts.

 

The Other said something in a language that Will did not know; his voice was like the cracking of ice on a winter lake, and the words were mocking.

Ser Waymar Royce found his fury. "For Robert!" he shouted, and he came up snarling, lifting the frost-covered longsword with both hands and swinging it around in a flat sidearm slash with all his weight behind it. The Other's parry was almost lazy.

 

The watchers moved forward together, as if some signal had been given. Swords rose and fell, all in a deathly silence. It was cold butchery. The pale blades sliced through ringmail as if it were silk. Will closed his eyes. Far beneath him, he heard their voices and laughter sharp as icicles.

The former commander who just died rises from the dead.

 

The broken sword fell from nerveless fingers. Will closed his eyes to pray. Long, elegant hands brushed his cheek, then tightened around his throat. They were gloved in the finest moleskin and sticky with blood, yet the touch was icy cold.

 

 

Everything about the prolog, to me, says George wants us to be scared of the Others.

[Malchyor]

If anything, these quotes help lead us to think that Cold Hands is an "other" who's just got a different view point.

[caravaggio]

If anything, these quotes help lead us to think that Cold Hands is an "other" who's just got a different view point.

The description of Coldhands is nothing like that of the Others. A special wight maybe or something else entirely.

[Black Crow]

 

Well, I agree it's probably too much to call what was going on a "mercy kill."  Though, I'm not sure that anything we can observe of the execution precludes it being mercy.   Rather it's because it's assuming too much about the Others motives.

 

I think the laughter started after the group coup de grace (which kind of comes across to me like a firing squad or something), and even then, I can think of a few characters who'd laugh while performing a mercy kill (Jaime and Sandor come immediately to mind).  I don't think the number of killers necessarily detracts from the mercy idea.

 

The issue I had been originally trying to get at is that the killing was oddly humane, controlled, and almost as though it was following some kind of code, whether a code of honor, or ritual, or justice, or mercy or some other motivation.    But yea, mercy might not have been their actual motive, so calling it a "mercy kill" is probably too loaded a term for this.    

 

Is there a better term for it that doesn't presuppose motives?

 

 

As to motivations and bearing in mind the Craster's sons identification, I've always thought this response to a question about Arya to be quite significant:

 

Not only in Ice and Fire — we also did this bit in the Wild Cards series, the whole thing of the child soldier is a fascinating construct. We have this picture of children [as] so sweet and innocent. I think some of the recent history in Africa and some of the longer history have shown that under the right circumstances, they can become just as dangerous as men, and in some ways more dangerous. On some level, it’s almost a game to them.

http://observationde...rview-886117845