The Others & Evil: GRRM's Words

[William MK Stark]

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 former commander who just died rises from the dead.

 

 

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

That was pretty much the point, to make us fear them. So is the point of every other prologue and epilogue in the series. But every other subject of fear in these chapters ( Melisandre, the Faceless Men, and Lady Stoneheart ) so far has been given a more in-depth look into later on, revealing them not to be total monsters without thinking but beings with understandable goals, motivation and a kind of humanity. So it's most likely that the Others will get the same treatment, getting more complex backgrounds without doing away with all the mysteries. 

[caravaggio]

That was pretty much the point, to make us fear them. So is the point of every other prologue and epilogue in the series. But every other subject of fear in these chapters ( Melisandre, the Faceless Men, and Lady Stoneheart ) so far has been given a more in-depth look into later on, revealing them not to be total monsters without thinking but beings with understandable goals, motivation and a kind of humanity. So it's most likely that the Others will get the same treatment, getting more complex backgrounds without doing away with all the mysteries. 

Maybe, I could definitely see that happening as you say. All I'm saying is that there is no hint of that anywhere in the prolog. Everything there is meant to be viewed as terrifying, horrible, and evil. I've never seen anything in the books or by GRRM to indicate that they aren't pretty much completely evil.

 

Plus, in a prolog like Cressen's, we might see that he views Mel as evil, but other characters within the prolog aren't viewing her that way.

[William MK Stark]

Maybe, I could definitely see that happening as you say. All I'm saying is that there is no hint of that anywhere in the prolog. Everything there is meant to be viewed as terrifying, horrible, and evil. I've never seen anything in the books or by GRRM to indicate that they aren't pretty much completely evil.

 

Plus, in a prolog like Cressen's, we might see that he views Mel as evil, but other characters within the prolog aren't viewing her that way.

I guess it's just the way each of us reads it, I myself found plenty of detail hinting at the Others' possible deeper nature, like how  butterbumps! has written. Are they cold and ruthless ? Sure, but that does not completely neglects the demonstration of principle and a form of honor.  

 

In the other prologues, the central focus has been a human, which means we are automatically bound to sympathize with them much more easily, but from the perspective of the PoV character, they are just as horrible and mysterious as the Others. ( And in Mel's and LS's cases, having what looks to be a cult following them personally makes them feel more dangerous and terrifying to me). 

[caravaggio]

I guess it's just the way each of us reads it, I myself found plenty of detail hinting at the Others' possible deeper nature, like how  butterbumps! has written. Are they cold and ruthless ? Sure, but that does not completely neglects the demonstration of principle and a form of honor.  

 

In the other prologues, the central focus has been a human, which means we are automatically bound to sympathize with them much more easily, but from the perspective of the PoV character, they are just as horrible and mysterious as the Others. ( And in Mel's and LS's cases, having what looks to be a cult following them personally makes them feel more dangerous and terrifying to me). 

 

I can see where butterbumps and other readers see the Others actions in the prolog as showing Waymar honor and respect, but it is just as likely that the remaining Others are letting the first one take care of Waymar out of respect for that Other, not Waymar. If they are trying to give the rangers an honorable death, why let wighted Waymar kill Will? Why not give him the same honorable death?

 

Maybe, I'll have to go back and look over some of those other prologs as you say. To me, all the characters in Will's prolog are having panic attacks and practically pissing themselves they are so scared, which you don't get in the other prologs. The whole thing is set as a scene of horror.

[The Mother of The Others]

I don't get why people are betting on the Others having redeeming qualities as if that's the default expectation we should have.

 

That expectation isn't deserved, you're just placing your bet on it because you know this is a book and books often include swerves like that.   Not because it currently makes sense as a thing to expect.   It's just a fun way to hedge your bets, and with literature it's safe to bet on evil having a silver lining, even though in real life it'd be suicidal to distribute your trust so foolishly.   The internet's favorite view of the Others is that we'll be able to say: "Ha!  I knew it all along!   It turns out the Others are actually British and just had different Tea Time rituals which humanity didn't understand properly all this time!"    But in reality the result you're expecting would be a mirage 99.7% of the time, and "I knew it all along!" would change into, "Oooh, I've made a terrible mistake!  Ack!" [beheaded].    That's why it's sort of silly to see 99% of readers lining up like lemmings to have the Others chop them into bits like they did to.... Weymar, was it?    I mean, we were given that example to show what the Others would do to us should we ever meet up with them, and yet everyone is so eager to disregard that example and insist that your meeting with the Others will go differently, because.....   why?     Because you're capable of making friends with evil.   Okay.   By all means, you go first then.   I'll watch and see how that goes.

[William MK Stark]

 

I can see where butterbumps and other readers see the Others actions in the prolog as showing Waymar honor and respect, but it is just as likely that the remaining Others are letting the first one take care of Waymar out of respect for that Other, not Waymar. If they are trying to give the rangers an honorable death, why let wighted Waymar kill Will? Why not give him the same honorable death?

 

Maybe, I'll have to go back and look over some of those other prologs as you say. To me, all the characters in Will's prolog are having panic attacks and practically pissing themselves they are so scared, which you don't get in the other prologs. The whole thing is set as a scene of horror.

I'm not trying to say that they cared that much about giving humans honorable deaths, I meant that at the very least, there are signs of higher thinking and moral code in them, hinting at the possibility of them not being entirely the cliched unthinking monsters who kill for no reason. About Will's case, didn't he wait for a long time before coming down ? The Others could have left already and the wighted Waymar just acted on its instinct to hunt down warm blood beings.

 

The horror element is not as prominent in Mel's and Stoneheart's chapters as in the Others' because after all, they are still human, we can understand their words and comprehend some of their behavior. Fear of the unknown is the greatest fear of all, we don't understand a word uttered by the Other and haven't been let in on their actual background and motivation, automatically making them scarier.

[William MK Stark]

I don't get why people are betting on the Others having redeeming qualities as if that's the default expectation we should have.

 

That expectation isn't deserved, you're just placing your bet on it because you know this is a book and books often include swerves like that.   Not because it currently makes sense as a thing to expect.   It's just a fun way to hedge your bets, and with literature it's safe to bet on evil having a silver lining, even though in real life it'd be suicidal to distrubute your trust so foolishly.   The internet's favorite view of the Others is that we'll be able to say: "Ha!  I knew it all along!   It turns out the Others are actually British and just had different Tea Time rituals which humanity didn't understand properly all this time!"    But in reality the result you're expecting would be a mirage 99.7% of the time, and "I knew it all along!" would change into, "Oooh, I've made a terrible mistake!  Ack!" [beheaded].    That's why it's sort of silly to see 99% of readers lining up like lemmings to have the Others chop them into bits like they did to.... Weymar, was it?    I mean, we were given that example to show what the Others would do to us should we ever meet up with them, and yet everyone is so eager to disregard that example and insist that your meeting with the Others will go differently, because.....   why?     Because you're capable of making friends with evil.   Okay.   By all means, you go first then.   I'll watch and see how that goes.

 I personally have that expectations because GRRM has done that in the series before. Back in AGoT, Jaime was portrayed as nothing short of a complete monster, yet in the later books he was given his PoV and he turned into one of most complex and sympathetic characters. This fact is true for Theon too, who was a spiteful troublemaker at first, but then given a powerfully written redemption arc.

 Also, wanting to understand the Others more doesn't mean not fearing them. Will we see them in a more sympathetic light if there is a reasonable cause to their action ? Yes. Will that make us line up for them to kill and turn into wights or root for them against our own kind ? Sure as hell no.

  Understanding your enemies is not making friends with them, it allows you to give them the respect they deserve, possibly avoiding unnecessary conflict and helps you to make up better tactics to fight them in case of war. 

  One more note, I can't speak for every reader, but personally I'd say "Wow, I'm kinda disappointed that he went for the easier path, but as long as the rest of the story still rocks, I won't mind".

[caravaggio]

 

 

The horror element is not as prominent in Mel's and Stoneheart's chapters as in the Others' because after all, they are still human, we can understand their words and comprehend some of their behavior. Fear of the unknown is the greatest fear of all, we don't understand a word uttered by the Other and haven't been let in on their actual background and motivation, automatically making them scarier.

 

 

I think it is one of the most horror filled passages even before they actually encounter the Others. Will and Gared are desperately afraid, want to return to the Wall, and feel something is very wrong even before they have an encounter.

 

 

Will could see the tightness around Gared's mouth, the barely suppressed anger in his eyes under the thick black hood of his cloak. Gared had spent forty years in the Night's Watch, man and boy, and he was not accustomed to being made light of. Yet it was more than that. Under the wounded pride, Will could sense something else in the older man. You could taste it; a nervous tension that came perilous close to fear.

 

Will shared his unease. He had been four years on the Wall. The first time he had been sent beyond, all the old stories had come rushing back, and his bowels had turned to water. He had laughed about it afterward. He was a veteran of a hundred rangings by now, and the endless dark wilderness that the southron called the haunted forest had no more terrors for him.

 

Until tonight. Something was different tonight. There was an edge to this darkness that made his hackles rise. Nine days they had been riding, north and northwest and then north again, farther and farther from the Wall, hard on the track of a band of Wildling raiders. Each day had been worse than the day that had come before it. Today was the worst of all. A cold wind was blowing out of the north, and it made the trees rustle like living things. All day, Will had felt as though something were watching him, something cold and implacable that loved him not. Gared had felt it too. Will wanted nothing so much as to ride hellbent for the safety of the Wall, but that was not a feeling to share with your commander.

 

Two experienced rangers who have no fear of the haunted woods and whatnot beyond the Wall are full of fear before they see anything related to the Others. It can't just be that they don't understand the Others. George set the whole scene up as being full of horror and evil.

[caravaggio]

Here is an example from Cressen's prolog:

 

 

Shireen gave a cry of delight. Even Cressen had to admit the bird made an impressive sight, white as snow and larger than any hawk, with the bright black eyes that meant it was no mere albino, but a truebred white raven of the Citadel. "Here," he called. The raven spread its wings, leapt into the air, and flapped noisily across the room to land on the table beside him.

"I'll see to your breakfast now," Pylos announced. Cressen nodded. "This is the Lady Shireen," he told the raven. The bird bobbed its pale head up and down, as if it were bowing. "Lady," it croaked. "Lady."

The child's mouth gaped open. "It talks!"

 

So, you see that while the chapter ends badly, it has some light moments like Cressen interacting with Shireen. I think the same can be said for most of the others. Gared's prolog on the other hand, is scary from start to finish.

[William MK Stark]

 Yes, again I don't deny that the Others' chapters contain way more horror elements than the other human-focused prologues, just that these elements don't necessary set them up as complete evil without alternatives. All we can do now is wait and see how this turns out. Either way, as long as it is a great story, it will be ok by my book.  :laugh:

[butterbumps!]

I don't get why people are betting on the Others having redeeming qualities as if that's the default expectation we should have.

 

That expectation isn't deserved, you're just placing your bet on it because you know this is a book and books often include swerves like that.   Not because it currently makes sense as a thing to expect.   

 

Well, actually, I think it does make sense to expect something like that as the books are moving along.   Look at the way the fire side has been developed with such variety, complexity and moral ambiguity.   I think the way all these other magical quantities are getting developed, especially considering the depth of ice's apparent mirror, fire, is kind of a strong indication that there's probably a lot more to ice as well.   

 

I'd also argue that the way Martin constantly plays with the idea of horizon and perspective kind of tells us that there's probably a ton more to the story of the Others.   Everything always seems a lot flatter and more evil when you only see it from one side, and Martin's kind of all about exploiting that idea.  It's even in the way he structures the story as a series of POVs, sometimes in total conflict with another.   

 

I mean, it's not really just for the sake of it that this seems plausible to some of us.   There's some pretty major structural reasons that lend to the idea of more ambiguity and complexity there.

 

ETA:  was anyone actually saying that that should be "the default" expectation though?

[grufolo]

The others will arrive to Riverrun and will say something along the lines of 'isn't this Portland? Oh Jaysus, Mary dear you've been reading that map all wrong! We're terribly sorry lads, we should have taken that left turn when I told you to! ', then they will turn back and return where they came from

[William MK Stark]

The others will arrive to Riverrun and will say something along the lines of 'isn't this Portland? Oh Jaysus, Mary dear you've been reading that map all wrong! We're terribly sorry lads, we should have taken that left turn when I told you to! ', then they will turn back and return where they came from

   :lol:

[Raving Stark the Mad]

I'm of the mind that the Others are GRRMs take on the "totally evil enemy".  We have plenty of those in fantasy, and in many ways, GRRM is responding to the trope, only he is transferring it to a supernatural enemy.  I understand that GRRM has added a lot of moral complexity and ambiguity in his human characters, but I think the fact that he made the chief enemy "Others" is telling.  He could have made the big enemy the wildlings, but he didn't.  He made the chief enemy "other-than-human". 

 

In GRRM's mind, people are never completely white or completely black.  There is always some grey.  Like he is fond of saying "Hitler liked dogs".  That's the realism and truth that he experiences in normal life. I think that goes out the window when we are talking about a supernatural, inhuman enemy.  I would not be surprised if there were some actual motive behind the Other's invasion that may paint then in a different light, such as escaping a collapsing home dimension before they all perish, but they need to freeze Westeros and kill everyone in it in order to survive.  Something like that. 

 

All of this is just a guess on my part, however.  It's just the way I've read the Others so far, and I don't like to automatically assume that just because a writer works "this way" here, he is going to work "this way" all the time, depending on the quality of the writer.  I think that level of predictability is not excellent writing, and I think GRRM is an excellent writer, so I don't take for granted that he is going to continually repeat a theme of moral greyness in enemies. 

[falcotron]

I'm of the mind that the Others are GRRMs take on the "totally evil enemy".  We have plenty of those in fantasy, and in many ways, GRRM is responding to the trope, only he is transferring it to a supernatural enemy.  I understand that GRRM has added a lot of moral complexity and ambiguity in his human characters, but I think the fact that he made the chief enemy "Others" is telling.  He could have made the big enemy the wildlings, but he didn't.  He made the chief enemy "other-than-human". 
 
In GRRM's mind, people are never completely white or completely black.  There is always some grey.  Like he is fond of saying "Hitler liked dogs".  That's the realism and truth that he experiences in normal life. I think that goes out the window when we are talking about a supernatural, inhuman enemy.

Take these two paragraphs and substitute "orcs" for "Others" and "JRRT" for "GRRM".

The whole point of creating orcs, and making them the main enemy instead of the human Easterlings, was to have a supernatural, other-than-human enemy that could be pure evil. Among the humans (including hobbits, etc.), we have characters of differing shades of grey, and even the darkest grey (Denethor, Boromir, Gollum, the Southron soldiers, etc.) all have different motivations and are in some ways more tragic than horrifying. But then there's the orcs, who are bred from dark magic and tortured elves as inhuman monsters whose only purpose is to be the totally evil enemy.

It's just the way I've read the Others so far, and I don't like to automatically assume that just because a writer works "this way" here, he is going to work "this way" all the time, depending on the quality of the writer.

But there's no such "automatic assumption" here. GRRM has repeatedly said that he's not writing an elves-vs.-orcs story. He's explained that as meaning that there's no pure good or evil in his story. The only assumption is that he isn't completely lying about his intentions, and won't completely fail at pulling off his intention. Meanwhile, your position assumes that one of those two is false. Which of those is a more unwarranted assumption?

Let's look at a simpler question. I predict that there will be about 13 POVs in the next book. My argument is that GRRM has said, as recently as this year, that there will be 13 POVs. If there are 12 or 15 POvs, I won't be surprised, but if there are 25, or 6, I'll be very surprised. Now, you could counter by saying "I don't like to automatically assume that the 6th book will have 50% more POVs than the first book". Or "I think you're wrong that 13 POVs would be better than 25, and here's why". Or you could even do what the OP here has done, and try to find a way to reinterpret the word "POV" so that GRRM could be technically right but practically there will still be 25 POVs. But regardless, you're the one making a big assumption, not me: you have to either assume that he's lying, or that he intended to have 13 POVs but he'll fail to pull that off, or that POV doesn't mean POV. None of those is impossible, but none seems that likely.

[Raving Stark the Mad]

The whole point of creating orcs, and making them the main enemy instead of the human Easterlings, was to have a supernatural, other-than-human enemy that could be pure evil.  But then there's the orcs, who are bred from dark magic and tortured elves as inhuman monsters whose only purpose is to be the totally evil enemy.
 

I disagree that the Orcs were meant to be the "main enemy" at all.  The chief antagonist, the main enemy, was Sauron, not the Orcs.  The Orcs were simply some filler.  A little bit of monster to throw into the myth.  What's a good myth without some monsters? 

 

I honestly think that Tolkien and Martin approach the problem of evil in very different ways, and are telling their stories in very different methods.  Tolkien was writing a myth.  His approach to evil was from a very heavy Christian/Catholic POV.  Martin is writing a historical fantasy novel.  His approach is from a post Christian POV.  But they are both dealing with one unifying theme.  A battle against evil.  And both of them dealt with external vs internal evil.  Martin just has a whole lot more of it and it's more present and everyday. 

 

 

But there's no such "automatic assumption" here. GRRM has repeatedly said that he's not writing an elves-vs.-orcs story. He's explained that as meaning that there's no pure good or evil in his story. The only assumption is that he isn't completely lying about his intentions, and won't completely fail at pulling off his intention. Meanwhile, your position assumes that one of those two is false. Which of those is a more unwarranted assumption?
 

I'm unfamiliar with the quote and the source.  I am unsure of what amount of weight I should give a quote such as that.  I completely agree that Martin isn't writing a "elves vs orcs" story as Tolkien would write it.  I'm not sure about the explanation either, I'd have to read it for myself.  I can certainly agree that there is no pure good in the story, or very little of it.  My personal take on the quote is that Martin was making clear that "good defeats evil due to it's nature" is not one of his guiding principals. 

 

I think there is plenty of pure evil in the story, despite the overall three dimensions given all characters.  Joffrey, Tywin, Ramsay, Gregor, etc etc.  I find them all to be evil.  They may be good with dogs and children, but I think they're evil.  I just don't expect any of them, and I did not witness any of them,  to be defeated by white knights or due to some unwritten cosmic law that good always triumphs.  When Arya Stark shoves a sword through a villain's heart, I understand the greyness that Martin has infused in the character and actions of Arya.  But I still believe that the drama, the story, comes from that conflict with evil, either within or without. 

 

 

Let's look at a simpler question. I predict that there will be about 13 POVs in the next book. My argument is that GRRM has said, as recently as this year, that there will be 13 POVs. If there are 12 or 15 POvs, I won't be surprised, but if there are 25, or 6, I'll be very surprised. Now, you could counter by saying "I don't like to automatically assume that the 6th book will have 50% more POVs than the first book". Or "I think you're wrong that 13 POVs would be better than 25, and here's why". Or you could even do what the OP here has done, and try to find a way to reinterpret the word "POV" so that GRRM could be technically right but practically there will still be 25 POVs. But regardless, you're the one making a big assumption, not me: you have to either assume that he's lying, or that he intended to have 13 POVs but he'll fail to pull that off, or that POV doesn't mean POV. None of those is impossible, but none seems that likely.

As I said, I havn't seen said quote, or explanation, but I think you're placing too much on what one or two sentences that Martin has said, rather than looking at the books. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

So who do you think the armies of Gog and Magog, etc., are if not living people? (The first war is even more obvious, because the enemy is explicitly described as all of mankind who aren't sealed by God and haven't been killed by the plagues, but in that one, it's less clear whether God's forces involve those who have been awakened from death.)

Or, if you don't want to reread Revelation, you can always reread The Lord of the Rings, where Aragorn used an army of zombies to defeat the living men of Umbar at Pelargir. Of course it was Isildur who cursed them to be zombies until some descendant needed them to attack the living, and Aragorn only used the army his ancestor had left him, but they're both clearly painted as heroes, not bad guys.

And there are also numerous modern fantasy stories where, e.g., Anita Blake raises an army of zombies to fight the human servants of a powerful vampire so she can get to the vampire herself.

Even in ASoIaF, what exactly did Thoros do but reanimate a corpse to carry on attacking evil living people? Does this make Thoros as bad guy?

In fact, the oldest account of necromancy we have was Odysseus using necromantic rituals to raise Tiresias from the dead, although he just wanted to ask him for directions, not use him to attack the living.

 

Let me put it this way: your average reader (or even your average human) is going to find a zombie apocalypse a Bad Thing. That's why the likes of Night of the Living Dead or Dawn of the Dead exist within the horror genre; the idea of corpses rising, and attacking you is scary. The reader is invited to identify with the Nights Watch, and as such shares their horror (as I have mentioned, Martin has done nothing to displace the default assumption that we ought to cheer for humanity).

 

All this points to the Others being Evil. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

And what's your point anyway?   Note that I wasn't arguing that Others = knights, or that they are already complex and morally ambiguous, or any particular theory of the Others for that matter.   The issue is if it comes to pass that the Others are morally ambiguous and more complex, would that be a rugpull.  And the answer is no, not really, there's some passages, like the Prologue, that can read as having supported that development.

 

You are straight out confusing complexity with moral greyness. The two are not the same. My point with the cat and mouse is that the Others (within the prologue and elsewhere) are uniformly shown to be vicious evil bastards.

 

No-one has any problem with the Others being shown to be complex critters with eldritch motivations. That's fine. The complete and unjustifiable rug-pull is trying to pretend that the Others aren't the black hats. They are the blackest of the black.They are (to make a Gene Wolfe reference) fuligin. Whether they have a knightly culture or some metaphysical reasoning behind what they do is completely irrelevant because at no point can we be asked to cheer for the Others. If Martin tries, it's bad writing.

[The Marquis de Leech]

In GRRM's mind, people are never completely white or completely black. 

 

*cough* Gregor Clegane *cough*

*cough* Ramsay Bolton *cough*

*cough* Joffrey Baratheon *cough*

[falcotron]

I disagree that the Orcs were meant to be the "main enemy" at all.  The chief antagonist, the main enemy, was Sauron, not the Orcs.  The Orcs were simply some filler.  A little bit of monster to throw into the myth.  What's a good myth without some monsters?

You're just weaseling your way out of the conclusion here, not arguing against it. If someone were arguing that the Others aren't the enemy because they're just followers of the Night's King or the Great Other or whatever, and therefore they aren't evil or it doesn't matter if they're evil, you'd call them on that.
 

I'm unfamiliar with the quote and the source.

The original post in this thread, by LordStoneheart, includes one of the quotes. So I haven't gone to dig up all of the other times GRRM has said the same or similar things and try to say, "Hah, but GRRM said this", because that would be both insulting and stupid. LordStoneheart obviously knows and understands what GRRM said, or he wouldn't be arguing for us to reinterpret it.

But if you want another quote, here is a good one:

And on what was his favorite PoV characters, he likes all of them, that it is important to consider that a hero is a villain from the other side, that Theon, Cersei and Jaime all think they are doing the right thing. perhaps Tyrion is his favorite character, his chapters are the easiest to write and he is the most like GRRM himself. He can think of no good definition of good and evil and that struggle to define it is a common theme in his work. That is one difference between him and Tolkien, that there is nothing redeeming in a orc or Sauron. It´s fine in Tolkien, but it´s a problem on his less subtle immitators.

So, a difference between him and Tolkien is that there is nothing redeeming in an orc or Sauron. If there's also nothing redeeming in an Other, that's not a difference between him and Tolkien.

My personal take on the quote is that Martin was making clear that "good defeats evil due to it's nature" is not one of his guiding principals.

You already have a personal take on the quote (or, rather, multiple quotes) before you're even familiar with it?