Why do people think the Others are morally grey?

[Tyrion1991]

7 hours ago, Dragonsbone said:

You misunderstood completely what I have said and I won't repeat it. Again. Read my posts again. 

I don't know how good your knowledge about art, colours and metaphors in literature are but here some brief overview:

If you have black colour, and you add the slitliest amount of white, no matter how little, this colour is called grey. Grey comes in different shades. Black is physically the absorbtion of light. Since white is the complete reflection of light, black is therefore the complete absence of white. 

Your personality comes from your brain. All your memories and feelings are, regarding to the state of the art of brain science, connected to each other. There is no brain part excluded where you have a part of your personality that could be good, and the rest of the brain only bad. Therefore your metaphor with the black board and a tiny little white point does not hold up as a metaphor for personality. 

Speaking of metaphors: In literature the grey is used to describe exactly these effects. A person who has good and bad qualities of personality. One can of course argue that since the amount of bad things Ramsay does, is way to big so that you could call this extremely dark grey and therefore call him black. That you could do. But I did not deny that. 

 

Which is how everybody understands evil.

I know that the commandant of Auschwitz was a good family man. I know that he was probably just a Prussian Officer, a man of his time, doing his orders; etc etc. But it was nothing less than justice to hang that man and I hate the notion that he could be described as anything other than evil. Its why I hate this celebration of "morally grey" characters and this implicit notion that its not realistic for evil to exist in the world and that you should never claim that somebody is evil. If you study history then you know that there are many people, in the last century alone, who could easily be called evil without any hesitation. I don't call Stalin evil because I don't get "his side of the story". Plus, if real life has so many obviously evil people then why is that implausible in a fictional setting?

So I do not care if the Others think Dany is going to cause the second doom. Or that they have broke some sort of peace treaty. Or that they feel threatened. Even if those things turn out to be true and GRRM would have had to massively mislead his audience for any of those things to be true. If they are stupid enough to attack, without trying to talk this through and murder everyone and everything they encounter. To use the corpses of children as soldiers. Then I am sorry but I don't care. Yes, maybe they aren't the Demons from 40k; that doesn't mean they aren't evil. What they are doing makes them evil, not what they are.

 

I mean am I just a bit behind the times here or something? Morally grey means a neutral depiction, where you cannot clearly say that an action is either right or wrong. Killing kids is almost never justifiable and the Others kill kids. What do you think they were doing at Hardholme? The Wildlings would not have fled if they weren't being attacked. Osha tells us that she was attacked by her dead husband. Somebody earlier suggested they were just harvesting people dying of the cold; that's just nonsense.

There is no just cause here. Even at her worst, Daenerys usually has some sort of just cause behind what she does. To take a bizarre example, when she restores order in Mereen by chopping the penises off rapists and hurling them in a basket big enough for two men to carry. That's morally grey. There is a just cause, restoring order to stop the violence in a city she has liberated from the slavers. However its made grey because Daenerys uses an unnecessary and disproportionate (and a little too creative) amount of violence without any sort of trial. But there is no just cause with the Others invasion. What could justify the Long Night and the extermination of humanity and all life? Before people say "oh but they aren't trying to do that". How? GRRM has been bigging the Others up as a huge threat to Westeros for a few novels. If they did not actually want to kill us, and they don't seem to want to just rule us as evidenced by the Wildlings; then why make such a big deal about the wall coming down. Surely there has to be a threat and the Others want us all dead.

Unless like my friend you really think the Night King will knock the wall down and politely ask for Jon to kill Danys dragons and that they'll leave. Just all a big misunderstanding and oh so morally grey that the Others refusal to start a dialogue meant their army killed so many people.

 

Somebody earlier on mentioned that they haven't killed the giants because we have Wun Wun. Yes, he is "the last giant". Kind of proves my point that they're all dead. The Wildlings talk about entire clans of giants before this. Which were fleeing the Others with Mance Rayder. Now they are all dead. That is genocide. Sure there was competition for food with the wildlings but this was no different than the inter clan rivalry of all the free folk; hence why they had no issue joining Mance because they still saw themselves as one people. I doubt Ygritte and the other wildlings would be singing songs about the giants otherwise. So the wildlings are not the ones who killed the giants. That is entirely the fault of the Others. It is not morally grey to commit genocide on a race that had lived on Westeros since the dawn of time and had no hand in whatever peace treaty the Others are so raging about.

I mean the Others must have been so wounded and hurt in spirit. I feel, so, so sorry for them and their plight in all this.  They truly are the misunderstood victims in this series. If only we had the humanity to see past our narrow prejudice and forgive then the world would be a better and kinder place.  

 

 

[Wild Bill]

I think a point that hasn't been made, or maybe not emphasied is "what is the point" of the narrative technique?

The writer gives an expression of a character's thoughts, motivations, words, and actions within that character's station in life at a certain place and point in time. The reader reacts based on the whatevers going on and what's gone before (and the writers skill). The reader might think a character is being smart or stupid or immoral or whatever - based on the readers thoughts, motivations, personal moral system, whatever...

A nuanced example is to take the argument between Ned and Robert about putting a hit out on Dany. We know from prior chapters (or are continuing to learn) that Ned (POV character) has great personal integrity, to the point of fault, and certainly acts within the medieval European morality of Westeros. He objects to killing a child, no matter how dangerous to Robert's regime. Does he object because it's a child, or simply because it would be murder? If it was to be Aegon instead of Dany, would that have been OK? I'm not sure that is clear, but as a reader I can ponder Ned's view. I might think he's an idiot because he's the Hand of the King, and surely his first priority is survival of the regime. But I can appreciate where he's coming from. I might wonder at the morals of Westeros, or of real-politik, or of those in comparison to my morals, including asking what my view would be in a similar situation. Etc.

So far we know that Robert (non-POV character) lets his Hand and Council do most of his job, while he hunts, whores, and drinks. We might not yet know that he rapes his wife (from our modern perspective, but not from Westeros perspective?). We might not know whether he feels that murdering a pretender is immoral or not (I can't remember from the book), but we do know that he considers regime preservation is essential. And again, the reader can ponder all this.

Whether this is termed as morally complex or ambiguous or as being "grey", our interpretation is personal. I could consider Ned an idiot, or Robert a cold-blooded killer, while a different reader might take the opposite interpretation. And maybe GRRM had something else in mind and one or both of us is wrong.

Oh, it looks like we all agree that Ramsey is sociopath, and evil seems a decent term to use. Though I'm not sure he deserves the one drop of white paint for his love of dogs - I don't get the feeling that he is loving and nice to his dogs...

[chrisdaw]

9 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Ya I think it is valid to include more than one point of view when assessing if a group is evil. It's more than valid actually, it is essential.

So what point of view should we go with? Insects? Are the Others morally grey from the perspective of insects? Reptiles? Non-living things? Rocks for instance?

[Wild Bill]

And part two of my prior post - I had things to do and couldn't complete the post, but did want to get in my opinion that morality is in the eye of the viewer interpreting a work, perhaps negating some of the cross-posting about whether some poster or GRRM think x or y is moral or not moral or needs to be considered soley from some posters moral frame of reference (no matter how much I might agree with that frame of reference).

On topic in regards to the Others. I suspect my opinions have already been expressed, but I'll give it a go:
1) the books imply an existential threat to the humans of Westeros. The implication is that any action vs the Others is justified. That doesn't stop one wondering about Dany's moral compass when Dany is back from an hypothetical dragon sortie against the Others exclaims "I love the smell of dragon breath in the morning".
2) In the abscence of a POV from the Others, or some insights from Bran, we don't have any reason to question the existential threat (or to sympathize with those poor, misunderstood Others).
3) In regards to genocide, or whatever the term is for deliberately exterminating a species, history shows an indifference to this until lately, which, none the less, hasn't stopped genocide or "ethnic cleansing".
4) So far as I can tell, the "Rains of Castermere" is treated in Westeros as that Tywin Lannister is a bad-ass - not that he has gone too far or anything. Which implies an in-world OK for wiping out the Others even if there is some Star-Trekkian solution that Kirk/Picard could negotiate so the Others live on, in peace, for eterinity, for... (I can't go on)

Blah, blah, blah. This has been a great discussion.

[falcotron]

41 minutes ago, Wild Bill said:

Which implies an in-world OK for wiping out the Others even if there is some Star-Trekkian solution that Kirk/Picard could negotiate so the Others live on, in peace, for eterinity, for...

This is actually exactly the problem with trying to get from morally grey characters to morally interesting stories.

If the story ends with a Star Trek solution—Jon engaging the Others' champion in a deathmatch, winning, and refusing to kill him, and somehow that makes everyone agree that Jon was right about everything and we should all be friends—it doesn't actually matter whether Jon is white or grey, it's still not an interesting message the second time you've seen it.

If the story ends with a Watchmen/Seventh Doctor/whatever solution—Jon somehow tricking both sides into peace against their will but for the greater good—that's interesting whether Jon was painted as white or grey along the way (unless you believe the ends always justify the means).

And I think that's part of the reason some people want the Others to be morally grey—not because it makes the Others more interesting, but because it opens up more interesting questions about the heroes who (presumably) end up defeating them.

But GRRM has made it pretty clear that he doesn't need to do that. The story of AA, for example, proves that he's writing a tale where being heroic requires getting the power needed to win, and that requires sacrifice, and that sacrifice, and the effect it has on the characters we've grown attached to, is going to be interesting, even if ultimately they're just fighting a force of nature.

[Wild Bill]

20 minutes ago, falcotron said:

And I think that's part of the reason some people want the Others to be morally grey—not because it makes the Others more interesting, but because it opens up more interesting questions about the heroes who (presumably) end up defeating them.

But GRRM has made it pretty clear that he doesn't need to do that. The story of AA, for example, proves that he's writing a tale where being heroic requires getting the power needed to win, and that requires sacrifice, and that sacrifice, and the effect it has on the characters we've grown attached to, is going to be interesting, even if ultimately they're just fighting a force of nature.

I mentioned the idealized Star Trek solution as a highly unlikely solution (and no doubt poorly phrased and placed since I was principally referring to the Lannisters genocide vs the Reynes not being considered to be a breach of the Westeros moral code, and that therefor, wiping out the Others would not be considered a problem.

I don't think that offering some viewpoint to the Others (unless GRRM does it) changes the dynamic of our interpretations of our heroes - in the presumption that the Others are eliminated, we still have the opportunity to evaluate our heroes in their actions.

I suspect we are in agreement with each other, or at least not in disagreement...

[falcotron]

43 minutes ago, Wild Bill said:

I mentioned the idealized Star Trek solution as a highly unlikely solution (and no doubt poorly phrased and placed since I was principally referring to the Lannisters genocide vs the Reynes not being considered to be a breach of the Westeros moral code, and that therefor, wiping out the Others would not be considered a problem.

I don't think that offering some viewpoint to the Others (unless GRRM does it) changes the dynamic of our interpretations of our heroes - in the presumption that the Others are eliminated, we still have the opportunity to evaluate our heroes in their actions.

I suspect we are in agreement with each other, or at least not in disagreement...

Yeah, you bringing up the Star Trek ending was just the inspiration for me to get back to the main thread topic. I was suggesting why people who confuse morally interesting story and morally grey characters might think the Others need to be grey for the story to be interesting, when it's actually neither necessary nor sufficient. I don't at all think you're one of those people, or you wouldn't have brought it up to make the point you did; sorry if my phrasing implied otherwise.

Anyway, I agree with you here again. Offering a viewpoint to the Others could be interesting for its own sake (or it might not), but it wouldn't either cause or preclude the heroes' actions being morally interesting.

[Dragonsbone]

16 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Read my post again.  I didn't say mix the colours, I said put a few spots of white or a mark in the corner on an otherwise completely black tapestry.  Do you really still see grey?  Your argument that everyone is grey and your colour analogy is of course to somehow mix good and bad acts together and to lose the perspective to distinguish them.  Given your acknowledgment of Ramsey's "effectively black" character (and we can assume ditto for Hitler) the idea of everyone being morally grey seems one you yourself don't find that useful in distinguishing between human beings.

Given we are talking about the Others I still don't agree that GRRM's realistic portrayal of the dark side of human behaviour has any bearing on whether they are morally grey.  They certainly haven't appeared so to date and The Long Night doesn't lend to that line of thought.

Word.

It is not my fucking Analogy for god's sake  It is George RR Martins Analogy from his Interviews. I said it from the beginning that I disagree with him. Hence I think the Others are the evil. Ramsay is evil. Yes Hitler was Evil. Having a tiny little peace of humanity in you does not neutralise all the bad stuff you do as a person. That is why I told you to read my posts again.

Here is my orginal response again:

"As to the black and white discussion, I think people overinterpret it a little bit. George RR Martin has said several times that he does not believe a person can be solely good or bad. He has even said that even the figures we hold for completely bad, had their moments of the good inside them. He took Adolf Hitler as an example, because it is said that he loved dogs. So if someone says that even Hitler was a very gray character in his opinion, you should not overanalyse this White and Grey stuff. I am not blaming GRRM of course, it is just that his definition of bad does not exist in our world that way. Most of us would identify Hitler as a bad guy if he was a character in the novels. It is just a definition matter. You can not derive anything out of that."

[The Sunland Lord]

They are not human, they don't have moral standards to begin with. 

[Dragonsbone]

4 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

They are not human, they don't have moral standards to begin with. 

Well, but they are intelligent. This is obvious from the Prolog in AGOT. So they don't act like animals. If we define something as evil, we define it from our moral standards, not by theirs. From the perspective of us, they are evil. They would not consider themselves as such of course, but that is true for every evil character. But the missconception or the whole missing of a moral compass, does not stop us from calling them evil. An absolute definition of Evilness does not exist. You base it on your moral standards. Allways. 

[The Sunland Lord]

8 minutes ago, Dragonsbone said:

Well, but they are intelligent. This is obvious from the Prolog in AGOT. So they don't act like animals. If we define something as evil, we define it from our moral standards, not by theirs. From the perspective of us, they are evil. They would not consider themselves as such of course, but that is true for every evil character. But the missconception or the whole missing of a moral compass, does not stop us from calling them evil. An absolute definition of Evilness does not exist. You base it on your moral standards. Allways. 

They are intelligent and have some purpose. But morals? 

There are animals who are intelligent, cunning, brutal, and have a purpose, but don't have any morals.

Did GRRM gift them any morals? Who knows, he is a gardener as he claims, so he might do it in future.

Edit: They do let one survivor to spread the truth, right? Or was it only a show thing? Don't remember if they left the man run away in AGoT purposefully.

So, if we judge them by this, they do have a reason for doing it, therefore, people are aware of their presence. Why are they doing it? They spare one life despite they don't have to. Can we call this a moral desicion, for example? If presumably it was a book thing.

 

 

[Dragonsbone]

4 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

They are intelligent and have some purpose. But morals? 

There are animals who are intelligent, cunning, brutal, and have a purpose, but don't have any morals.

Did GRRM gift them any morals? Who knows, he is a gardener as he claims, so he might do it in future.

 

 

True. But as I said, their morals or their non existing morals (If that is possible when you are intelligent) are not relevant when we define someone as evil. It is our morals who define someone as evil.

[three-eyed monkey]

10 hours ago, chrisdaw said:

So what point of view should we go with? Insects? Are the Others morally grey from the perspective of insects? Reptiles? Non-living things? Rocks for instance?

I'm not sure non-living things have a perspective. And I doubt that insects and reptiles have a sense of evil.

There is no question that the Others are a threat from the human point of view and it's easy to consider them as evil. The story requires that obviously. The question is are they evil, and to assess that we really need to know what motivates their advance. If it is simply conquest and genocide that motivates them then I would say they are evil. If they are part of a natural or perhaps magical cycle then I would have to say they are no more evil than the onset of winter, despite the fact that a harsh winter could kill many in Westeros.

[Armand Gargalen]

21 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

I mean am I just a bit behind the times here or something? Morally grey means a neutral depiction, where you cannot clearly say that an action is either right or wrong. Killing kids is almost never justifiable and the Others kill kids. What do you think they were doing at Hardholme? The Wildlings would not have fled if they weren't being attacked. Osha tells us that she was attacked by her dead husband. Somebody earlier suggested they were just harvesting people dying of the cold; that's just nonsense.

 

Very interesting thread, to start with. 

I think @Tyrion1991 has touched on a really interesting problem, but I have reached a different solution.

I prefer not to judge people, so there are no black or white or grey or evil people. Just people.

That attitude sets you free to judge actions. Killing people is bad. I want the killing of people to stop.

I don´t care if the Others have grey morals, if they are an amoral force of nature or just a metaphor for climate change. I may be intellectually curious about their nature, and knowing about it will help me for the next step of the process, but from a moral point of view, I find it irrelevant. Whatever they are, they are doing something wrong that needs to be stopped.

The question, for me, is not whether the Others are evil or just dark grey, but how do we stop them from killing more people?

ASOIAF is a fictional story, so there is only a possible answer: however the author says.

Now, I am a pacifist, and GRRM has affirmed to be so as well. Pacifism is not just the belief that war is bad; anyone but very seriously psychologically damaged people and people who benefits financially or otherwise from war without suffering its horror would agree on this.

Pacifism is the belief that war is NEVER the solution to a conflict or the lesser of two evils. Pacifists believe that there is always a better alternative to be found, one which may not look as satisfying in the short term but it is in the longer one.

Because of this, I am quite certain that a pacifist writer would not try to solve the main conflict of his opus magnum through a war, a war to end all wars, the only war that matters. A pacifist would solve it through a dramatic internal struggle which forces the protagonists to realize that war is not the solution to the problem, and to try to come up with alternative solutions.

This is just my opinion, and I could be wrong. GRRM may not be as much as committed pacifist as I am and end his work with a big war. I am pretty confident he won´t, and actually, in a smaller scale, has ended some other of his previous stories the way I described a pacifist would do. I won´t say which ones not to spoil them,but if you are acquainted with his work, you will be able to remember at least one. 

[the trees have eyes]

5 hours ago, Dragonsbone said:

It is not my fucking Analogy for god's sake  It is George RR Martins Analogy from his Interviews. I said it from the beginning that I disagree with him. Hence I think the Others are the evil. Ramsay is evil. Yes Hitler was Evil. Having a tiny little peace of humanity in you does not neutralise all the bad stuff you do as a person. That is why I told you to read my posts again.

Here is my orginal response again:

"As to the black and white discussion, I think people overinterpret it a little bit. George RR Martin has said several times that he does not believe a person can be solely good or bad. He has even said that even the figures we hold for completely bad, had their moments of the good inside them. He took Adolf Hitler as an example, because it is said that he loved dogs. So if someone says that even Hitler was a very gray character in his opinion, you should not overanalyse this White and Grey stuff. I am not blaming GRRM of course, it is just that his definition of bad does not exist in our world that way. Most of us would identify Hitler as a bad guy if he was a character in the novels. It is just a definition matter. You can not derive anything out of that."

Ok, so you get it.  You're not confused at all.  And as you point out with some exasperation it is after all pretty obvious and you're understandably annoyed at having to explain this.  So why do you think GRRM doesn't?  His comment about moral greyness was about writing believable human characters not about any difficulty in judging a mass murdererl's actions.  I still don't get why you juxtaposed the Others and Hitler under the banner of the author's misunderstood belief in moral greyness (read humanity) as if you think that should shape our understanding / expectations of the story, particularly the non-human element of it.

4 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I'm not sure non-living things have a perspective. And I doubt that insects and reptiles have a sense of evil.

There is no question that the Others are a threat from the human point of view and it's easy to consider them as evil. The story requires that obviously. The question is are they evil, and to assess that we really need to know what motivates their advance. If it is simply conquest and genocide that motivates them then I would say they are evil. If they are part of a natural or perhaps magical cycle then I would have to say they are no more evil than the onset of winter, despite the fact that a harsh winter could kill many in Westeros.

Winter doesn't kill deliberately.  This analogy with the Others doesn't stack up for me.  You don't portray a neutral phenomenon, however dangerous it may be, as so horrifying and malevolent.  Child sacrifice and armies of the undead aren't about restoring balance or peaceful co-existence, they're straight-up horror.

[three-eyed monkey]

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

Winter doesn't kill deliberately.  This analogy with the Others doesn't stack up for me.  You don't portray a neutral phenomenon, however dangerous it may be, as so horrifying and malevolent.  Child sacrifice and armies of the undead aren't about restoring balance or peaceful co-existence, they're straight-up horror.

GRRM has to portray them as evil for the sake of drama, tension, conflict, etc. But you said it yourself, GRRM's comment about moral greyness was about writing more interesting characters. I don't believe he will abandon that and use the simple bad guy trope for the series' ultimate antagonists. I don't think they are simply evil, I suspect there is more to them than that. I think they have an important role to play in the natural order of GRRM's world, just as winter has a role to play in the natural order of our world.

[the trees have eyes]

7 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

GRRM has to portray them as evil for the sake of drama, tension, conflict, etc. But you said it yourself, GRRM's comment about moral greyness was about writing more interesting characters. I don't believe he will abandon that and use the simple bad guy trope for the series' ultimate antagonists. I don't think they are simply evil, I suspect there is more to them than that. I think they have an important role to play in the natural order of GRRM's world, just as winter has a role to play in the natural order of our world.

I think we all expect the explanation for the Others to be, well, other than straightforward.  In the sense of whether they are objectively "evil", if such a thing can be said to exist in reality other than as a concept? No, that seems unlikely given the author's criticism of JRRT's orcs.  But in the sense of an existential threat that from the subjective experience of our many characters amounts to a repeat of an earlier attempt to erase humanity completely they are the ultimate antagonists.  Some people consider them another faction in the drama of Westeros and a force to oppose "Dany and her dragons" [sic] while theorising that Jon or Bran will go Team Other".  This seems extremely unlikely to me and wheher we get bogged down in philosophical debates about whether they are evil (or beyond any such futile human categorisations) they are presented as a mindful and implacable foe.  The why of it is the mystery, not as some people seem to think the actuality of their actions and intentions.  They're here for more than danegeld or treaty negotiations.

[Wild Bill]

21 hours ago, falcotron said:

Yeah, you bringing up the Star Trek ending was just the inspiration for me to get back to the main thread topic. I was suggesting why people who confuse morally interesting story and morally grey characters might think the Others need to be grey for the story to be interesting, when it's actually neither necessary nor sufficient. I don't at all think you're one of those people, or you wouldn't have brought it up to make the point you did; sorry if my phrasing implied otherwise.

Anyway, I agree with you here again. Offering a viewpoint to the Others could be interesting for its own sake (or it might not), but it wouldn't either cause or preclude the heroes' actions being morally interesting.

I hate to insert myself (overtly) into another argument in the thread, but I'll do it - ie that presenting the notion of grayness or moral ambiguity in characters, or whatever, is somehow an endorsement of actions that are generally considered dodgy, or even evil-  in the novels - that GRRM writes, so he must sympathize with those characters viewpoint. That one must buy into the notion that the presentation of Ramsey loving/abusing his dogs elevates Ramsey in some fashion (he loves his dogs!). That the Others, because of the narrative technique, must be treated as poor, sad, misunderstood chaps that consider themselves targeted by the bully humans...

My first post in the thread was a, subtle, attempt to "reset" the argument, and to focus on the idea that there is no structural reason to think that someone, something, etc. as presented by the author defines his morals, or our individual or collective morals.

To state it differently, the Battle of Gray Water Analogy, is one of Stannis, of the Unwavering moral viewpoint, vs Tyrion, of the Machiavellian real-politik viewpoint. Who will win? Why do we care?

Cheers

[falcotron]

3 hours ago, Wild Bill said:

I hate to insert myself (overtly) into another argument in the thread, but I'll do it - ie that presenting the notion of grayness or moral ambiguity in characters, or whatever, is somehow an endorsement of actions that are generally considered dodgy, or even evil-  in the novels - that GRRM writes, so he must sympathize with those characters viewpoint.

I don't think that has anything at all to do with the argument you inserted yourself into, but it's an interesting point anyway, so, why not…

It's pretty clear that part of what GRRM is trying to do with these novels is to get us to at last empathize, if not sympathize, with characters on all sides, and all parts of the moral spectrum. He's even, while talking about ASoIaF, called attention to the fact that the Iliad presented people on both sides as heroic, and presented people as heroic even when they were doing less than heroic things, while modern fantasy never does that.

We get PoVs for Cersei, for Tyrion at his darkest, for Melisandre, etc. In some cases, we get those PoVs after seeing everyone else's negative opinions of them for hundreds of pages. And obviously because he wants to examine their behavior, and their motivations for it, the struggles that drive them to it, and he wants us to do the same thing. Understanding them, even sympathizing with them, is not at all the same thing as endorsing them.

But we don't get PoVs for Vargo Hoat or Ramsay. Why not? Well, on the one hand, they're just not as interesting. Whatever struggles are going on in Vargo Hoat's minds are probably pretty simple and not particularly illuminating. And on the other hand, it would take a lot more effort to get us to empathize with Vargo Hoat than with Cersei. Even if he sincerely believes he's a good person who's only become a sadist because the Black Goat demands it of her followers or something, that's not a motivation most readers will be able to take in the same way as Cersei's motherly obsessions.

So, with that in mind:

3 hours ago, Wild Bill said:

That the Others, because of the narrative technique, must be treated as poor, sad, misunderstood chaps that consider themselves targeted by the bully humans...

The others are alien. That means it will take a lot of effort to get us to truly understand and empathize with them. There are some stories where just getting into an alien mind is the whole point, of course, but this isn't one of them. In this story, whether it's worth it depends on whether the results would be sufficiently interesting to explore, in parallel with his human characters. Balancing the scales by making the Others have just as valid an interest in self-preservation as us, that doesn't even really enter into it.

That being said, the human characters learning about the Others' motivations could be interesting for how it affects their own internal struggles. If so, that would be a different reason for GRRM to do it. And it could be as simple as "the Others think we're bullies", if that's somehow an interesting revelation that gives us insight into Jon's mind or something—but I don't think it will be.

3 hours ago, Wild Bill said:

To state it differently, the Battle of Gray Water Analogy, is one of Stannis, of the Unwavering moral viewpoint, vs Tyrion, of the Machiavellian real-politik viewpoint. Who will win? Why do we care?

But there, we don't care who will win nearly as much as we care what effects it has on Tyrion, and Stannis, and Davos, and other characters we've come to care about watching. The story even cuts off for us before the battle is over, and we then find out the results after the fact, and quickly move on to Stannis dealing with his defeat and the Tyrells taking advantage of their part in the victory.

[Wild Bill]

22 hours ago, falcotron said:

I don't think that has anything at all to do with the argument you inserted yourself into, but it's an interesting point anyway, so, why not…

It's pretty clear that part of what GRRM is trying to do with these novels is to get us to at last empathize, if not sympathize, with characters on all sides, and all parts of the moral spectrum. He's even, while talking about ASoIaF, called attention to the fact that the Iliad presented people on both sides as heroic, and presented people as heroic even when they were doing less than heroic things, while modern fantasy never does that.

I  agree, and my post was intended to be mildly sarcastic of posters that were having problems with their morality (vs the story) and contending that the author, or the narrative technique, or whatever is at fault.

By the way, I've always thought of Arya's journey or Brienne's search as being like the Odyssey - a nice counterpart to your Iliad reference - though I really think of it more of a "grand tour" of the 100 Years War, with an optional side-trip to visit the 30 Years War. Good times, eh? ...

Oh, to be on topic, sort of, lets consider Julian Jaynes book titled "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind". For all this books craziness, it might offer some interesting insights to the Others(?) or.... I'll leave it to the brave to google it and read it...

Cheers