War Won't Save The World

[SeanF]

9 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Honestly, have you ever gotten anyone's point yet? I mean, I saw you arguing with others on this thread, and with me too. It always ended with you not getting the point of someone's reply. And this conversation of ours ends the same way.

It's a rhetorical device, to pretend not to understand another person's argument.

It ought to be plain as a pike staff, that self-defence against aggressors is not the same thing as perpetrating a cycle of vengeance.

[Daeron the Daring]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

It's a rhetorical device, to pretend not to understand another person's argument.

It ought to be plain as a pike staff, that self-defence against aggressors is not the same thing as perpetrating a cycle of vengeance.

Don't bother with it. Neither I will. I'm not a native english speaker, but I never had the issue of not understanding someone else as many times as this dude had in this single topic.

[LynnS]

19 hours ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

That's not how my mind works. I want to keep going until the other person concedes.

This will only get you blocked or ignored.  Are you still in high school and have you read all the books?

[Tyrion1991]

OP

We only have two books to go. George has not done enough to convincingly turn around and belittle the audience for misjudging the ice monsters who raise the dead to kill all life. He would be pulling this out of nowhere and have to explain how previous appearances of the Others and statements by the Wildlings are all inaccurate. At the very least they’re commiting genocide and have made no effort to communicate whatever grievance real or imagined they may have. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck; it’s probably a duck.

Not only that but the pacing is all off. Our characters don’t even know the Others exist so how can they be prejudiced against them and it be rewarding for them to overcome it? Dany for example has no preconceived notion and it would be ridiculous for George to suddenly reveal hidden knowledge to throw Danys “preconceptions” in the space of the same novel she learns about them.

I must say as well. Such a plot would purely be done to undercut Dany as a character. The main justification for Dany is that she could save the world from the Others. If you make the Others, somehow, a misunderstood victim of human violation of article 4 paragraph C of the Ice Accords; that’s only going to cast Dany in a bad light. The Starks invariably will be the rational characters saying they never leapt to conclusions about the Others, since they don’t know they exist yet and have the good fortune of not being saddled with a divine saviour archetype. So most of the characters won’t even get slapped with the naughty stick apart from Dany. Making the outcast character a monster whilst the main cast are held up as the reasonable down to earth folk is not challenging the readers or expectations.

But yeah, I think George’s story has grown with the telling. This was meant to be a throw away fantasy trilogy in the 90s. Not a forty year epic of generational proportions that would be micro analysed  by millions of people and explored for its thematic substance by critics and experts. If the Others were introduced as just another version of the Wild Hunt they probably aren’t much more than that. People are looking for more than is there. Look at all the theory work that went into Wandavision; it’s exactly like that.

Because he’s not going to depict the good guys war as clean and glorious. I fully expect him to write about Danys army devastating the land. Full on scorched earth, living off the land, eastern front,  not one step backwards, use of human sacrifice etc etc. Ordinary people will struggle to distinguish between Dany and this Undead army they’ve only heard about. She isn’t going to be given easy choices. Of course George will then have Bran ex Machina solve everything and make the wise Starks with their intimate knowledge of winter war central to winning the fight; making everything Dany does seem unreasonable. No doubt with Northern Soldiers belittling the Dothraki and Unsullied lack of winter clothing and metal armour. All that nonsense is going to come out in the final few books as George goes for the Stark win.

[CamiloRP]

18 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

OPWe only have two books to go. George has not done enough to convincingly turn around and belittle the audience for misjudging the ice monsters who raise the dead to kill all life. He would be pulling this out of nowhere and have to explain how previous appearances of the Others and statements by the Wildlings are all inaccurate.

I have answered to this before, he's got presumably 3k pages left, that's more than a third of the total story, and he has pulled similar twists before with only 15% and 7% of the story left.

 

Quote

At the very least they’re commiting genocide and have made no effort to communicate whatever grievance real or imagined they may have. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck; it’s probably a duck.

Humans are/would be doing the same hing tho. That doesn't make the whole race evil, nor does it excuse a nuclear holocaust.

 

Quote

Not only that but the pacing is all off. Our characters don’t even know the Others exist so how can they be prejudiced against them and it be rewarding for them to overcome it? Dany for example has no preconceived notion and it would be ridiculous for George to suddenly reveal hidden knowledge to throw Danys “preconceptions” in the space of the same novel she learns about them.

Most of them heard stories about the Others since they where very little. If you saw the boogieman or a vampire or a werewolf, you would instantly think it evil, despite mere seconds ago thinking they didn't exist. But even then, this preconceptions aren't necessary to misjudge. If you saw a monster killing humans, it's likely that you would dislike all monsters of that kind. If the people in the Westerlands where all green haired, and the people in the Riverlands hadn't heard of them until the WOT5K, they would still dislike all green-haired people based on their limited interactions with the Mountain and co. Also Dany can learn about them while hearing the stories, which would make her biased anyway. And even then, there's no need for Dany to be involved in that conflict. Many fans believe (tho I'm not one of them) that the Other conflict won't be really believed outside the North.

 

Quote

I must say as well. Such a plot would purely be done to undercut Dany as a character. The main justification for Dany is that she could save the world from the Others.

That's what you think, maybe her main justification is to end slavery, an undeniably good thing.

 

Quote

If you make the Others, somehow, a misunderstood victim of human violation of article 4 paragraph C of the Ice Accords; that’s only going to cast Dany in a bad light.

That's not what I proposed tho. What I proposed was like the fighting between Blackwood and Bracken. No one is innocent, both are guilty, but no particular group is 'evil' or worthy of complete extermination.

 

Quote

The Starks invariably will be the rational characters saying they never leapt to conclusions about the Others, since they don’t know they exist yet and have the good fortune of not being saddled with a divine saviour archetype. So most of the characters won’t even get slapped with the naughty stick apart from Dany. Making the outcast character a monster whilst the main cast are held up as the reasonable down to earth folk is not challenging the readers or expectations.

That's your bias based on nothing but disliking the series (tho you spend a lot of time writing and thinking about it for how much you dislike it). The thing is, the Starks are the most prime to be biased against the Others, Northerners would have a grater grudge against them than, say, Dornish or Reachers, given their proximity, they are likely the ones who hear the stories the most as kids. Specially more than Valiryans, who weren't even in Westeros when the Long Night happened. Also, Jon is doing everything he can to end them, and Bran's training is likely about the same thing. 

So if anyone was going to be 'slapped' by this, the Starks are the prime candidate. But again, I don't think that's the point, defending against people attacking you isn't evil, but trying to talk things out is sometimes the better option. If the ending goes with humanity and the Others making peace, I think it would involve a small fraction of humanity, maybe just the NW, or maybe just the North, but those would be the same people most involved in fighting the Others also, so no 'slap'. If the ending goes, 'humanity goes to war but one POV opposes'. Then everyone is going to be 'slapped', cause everyone will die. 

My recommendation is reading something you actually like. Or at least trying to read this series again (if you even finished it) without your hate filtered glasses, cause you are proposing things based on nothing but disliking the series, in here even you are opposing ideas because it would contradict your belief that Martin writes the Starks as all-good.

 

Quote

But yeah, I think George’s story has grown with the telling. This was meant to be a throw away fantasy trilogy in the 90s. Not a forty year epic of generational proportions that would be micro analysed  by millions of people and explored for its thematic substance by critics and experts.

George has said time and again that he writes in a manner that rewards second readings. Also, if you read anything by him, you notice how much he loves thematic substance. 

 

Quote

If the Others were introduced as just another version of the Wild Hunt they probably aren’t much more than that.

It hasn't been that way with nothing else in the series, or any of the other things he wrote, but if you say so...

 

Quote

Because he’s not going to depict the good guys war as clean and glorious. I fully expect him to write about Danys army devastating the land. Full on scorched earth, living off the land, eastern front,  not one step backwards, use of human sacrifice etc etc. Ordinary people will struggle to distinguish between Dany and this Undead army they’ve only heard about. She isn’t going to be given easy choices. Of course George will then have Bran ex Machina solve everything and make the wise Starks with their intimate knowledge of winter war central to winning the fight; making everything Dany does seem unreasonable. No doubt with Northern Soldiers belittling the Dothraki and Unsullied lack of winter clothing and metal armour. All that nonsense is going to come out in the final few books as George goes for the Stark win.

Again, that's something only you believe based on... nothing.

[Tyrion1991]

36 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

I have answered to this before, he's got presumably 3k pages left, that's more than a third of the total story, and he has pulled similar twists before with only 15% and 7% of the story left.

 

Humans are/would be doing the same hing tho. That doesn't make the whole race evil, nor does it excuse a nuclear holocaust.

 

Most of them heard stories about the Others since they where very little. If you saw the boogieman or a vampire or a werewolf, you would instantly think it evil, despite mere seconds ago thinking they didn't exist. But even then, this preconceptions aren't necessary to misjudge. If you saw a monster killing humans, it's likely that you would dislike all monsters of that kind. If the people in the Westerlands where all green haired, and the people in the Riverlands hadn't heard of them until the WOT5K, they would still dislike all green-haired people based on their limited interactions with the Mountain and co. Also Dany can learn about them while hearing the stories, which would make her biased anyway. And even then, there's no need for Dany to be involved in that conflict. Many fans believe (tho I'm not one of them) that the Other conflict won't be really believed outside the North.

 

That's what you think, maybe her main justification is to end slavery, an undeniably good thing.

 

That's not what I proposed tho. What I proposed was like the fighting between Blackwood and Bracken. No one is innocent, both are guilty, but no particular group is 'evil' or worthy of complete extermination.

 

That's your bias based on nothing but disliking the series (tho you spend a lot of time writing and thinking about it for how much you dislike it). The thing is, the Starks are the most prime to be biased against the Others, Northerners would have a grater grudge against them than, say, Dornish or Reachers, given their proximity, they are likely the ones who hear the stories the most as kids. Specially more than Valiryans, who weren't even in Westeros when the Long Night happened. Also, Jon is doing everything he can to end them, and Bran's training is likely about the same thing. 

So if anyone was going to be 'slapped' by this, the Starks are the prime candidate. But again, I don't think that's the point, defending against people attacking you isn't evil, but trying to talk things out is sometimes the better option. If the ending goes with humanity and the Others making peace, I think it would involve a small fraction of humanity, maybe just the NW, or maybe just the North, but those would be the same people most involved in fighting the Others also, so no 'slap'. If the ending goes, 'humanity goes to war but one POV opposes'. Then everyone is going to be 'slapped', cause everyone will die. 

My recommendation is reading something you actually like. Or at least trying to read this series again (if you even finished it) without your hate filtered glasses, cause you are proposing things based on nothing but disliking the series, in here even you are opposing ideas because it would contradict your belief that Martin writes the Starks as all-good.

 

George has said time and again that he writes in a manner that rewards second readings. Also, if you read anything by him, you notice how much he loves thematic substance. 

 

It hasn't been that way with nothing else in the series, or any of the other things he wrote, but if you say so...

 

Again, that's something only you believe based on... nothing.

 

Assuming Winds of Winter has significant material with the Others at all. Dany, Tyrion and co is very unlikely to get to Westeros whilst we have all of the Bolton/NW stuff to resolve. What this would amount to is Dream of Spring starting with “the others are evil” and ending with “oh yeah total misunderstanding”. I don’t see the positive  here. Compare that to the Star Trek film The Undiscovered Country where Kirks resentment and prejudice against the Klingons is introduced on the back of previous films and given space to play our throughout the story until he overcomes it. Imagine if instead Kirk had not even heard of a Klingon until the last ten percent of the story and the same big deal was made about the Federation making peace; it would not have the same impact. It would be incredibly shallow. He has withheld substantial information from the reader and characters so it’s not subverting our expectations when he’s done so little to establish what they actually are; they’ve been a non presence in the story.

Because the humans goal is driving the military that’s invading their country out; not “genocide” if we presume they’re anything approaching our concept of life. Whether you get theatrical about that as a war between good and evil or portray it in purely mechanical terms is irrelevant; the end result is the same. If the Others refuse to talk and make no effort to do so that is entirely on them. It’s not like the prejudiced humans are refusing to talk to the Others and if they can laugh at some dying men I am not buying an Enders Game situation.

George has avoided casting doubt on the North and has went out of his way to make them the most tolerant and Everyman faction. Look how he’s leading into the North joining with the Wildlings with a minimum of grumbling. The characters being racist to the Wildlings are all Southern characters; not Northmen. So why isn’t he going to follow this existing pattern? Jon isn’t filled with hatred of the Others, he barely even dwells on them, it’s just a job to him and George presents that as being a healthy or normal mentality. He’s going to follow this pattern with the rest of the Starks and Northern characters. So they are set to be the ones who do any sort of peace with Winter nonsense. All the good Northerners will have this pragmatic stoicism and be depicted as central to solving a problem only they truly understand.

The evidence points to Dany being thrown under the bus because Dany is the character choosing war over planting trees and is associated with fire. Any fantastical war with the Others will heavily involve her. If you pull he rug out from her saving the world by making the Others like the Navi from Avatar then how is that not demonising the character? Saying, oh look the crazy woman’s being too quick tempered and judgemental, it makes her narrow minded; look how the smart Stark Bran gets it all sorted by talking things through. 

I don’t think George is going there. If he is, it’s a terrible idea and I can imagine how that would play out given the broad trajectory of the characters. Dany does not come out of such a situation in a positive light.

 

 

[Jaenara Belarys]

18 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

So, if you don't know anything about a culture then genocide is ok? The europeans knew nothing of the Americans when they first showed up, so was either group exterminating the other okay in that situation? specially considering all the europeans wanted to do was kill rape and steal...

 

No. For humans, genocide is never, never OK. But the Others are exactly human anymore.

 

18 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

My two cents in all of this. The Others attacked the humans, it doesn't matter if they were provoked or not, it would've ended in war regardless. If a human saw an Other, the human would likely try to kill it, as they think they are evil. So I assume he Others would do the same. But that doesn't make them evil or worthy or extermination. They are just wrong, like humans are.*

This is probably correct. Except for the evil part, since the Others are most certainly evil and have been painted as evil since the very beginning of AGOT

[Jaenara Belarys]

3 hours ago, LynnS said:

This will only get you blocked or ignored.  Are you still in high school and have you read all the books?

I've read all the books. I'd prefer not to be a prick, but if somebody just isn't listening it's kind of annoying. And to answer your question, I'm nearly in high school

[Barbrey Dustin]

War Won't Save The World

Maybe not but there are only two ways to avoid war with the Others.  Leave Westeros or give your sons to them.  Neither of those will appeal to the humans.  They will try war first and lose. 

They will only choose after they learn the futility of fighting the Others.  Each family will make a choice because people are not monolithic.  The ruling class will be most resistant to leaving.  They have lands and castles after all.  The normal folk will be more amenable to relocating to Essos.  The author went to great lengths to show us the abundance of available lands in Essos.  We have begun to see the migration of Westeros to Essos.  The foundations for a larger migration are being laid.  Barristan was the first.  Marwyn and, I hope Gilly, are safely on their way to meet with Daenerys.  Daenerys is slowly but surely being given the time to know the people whom she will rule in the future. I would love for Daenerys to become an Empress by the end of the story.  

Those who choose to remain behind will make a pact to offer their sons to the Others.  The Starks will choose to remain because Winterfell is theirs.  Bran's vision revealed them paying with blood long ago.  Winterfell will be theirs again and they will bring back the practice of human sacrifice as well as giving a son of the House to the Others.  A son from the Starks and Craster have high value to the Others.  Craster's Keep was a mini version of Winterfell in the far north.  Giving a skin-changing Stark to the Others is a valuable gift which may buy the Starks permanent rights to remain in the north.  Skin-changing gives the Others the tool they need to control the wights.  A periodic infusion of Stark DNA helps.  

[Jaenara Belarys]

1 minute ago, Barbrey Dustin said:

Bran's vision revealed them paying with blood long ago

I've always thought about this vision from ADWD as just being a sacrifice to the old gods? How do we know that they "paid in blood"?

 

2 minutes ago, Barbrey Dustin said:

Maybe not but there are only two ways to avoid war with the Others.  Leave Westeros or give your sons to them.  Neither of those will appeal to the humans.  They will try war first and lose. 

 

This is a good point, since I've somehow completely forgot about Craster's way. But in order for the Others to eternally leave them alone, you'll have to have a section of population both marked down for sacrifice and for breeding ( ick). I don't think that the Others would be content to have only one round of babies.

[Barbrey Dustin]

Just now, Jaenara Belarys said:

I've always thought about this vision from ADWD as just being a sacrifice to the old gods? How do we know that they "paid in blood"?

I don't "know."  It's my own theory.  The rangers found human bones stuffed inside a Weirwood.  I suppose the giving of human flesh kept the trees and the Old Gods happy.  But what if the Old Gods are connected to the Others.

Just now, Jaenara Belarys said:

 

This is a good point, since I've somehow completely forgot about Craster's way. But in order for the Others to eternally leave them alone, you'll have to have a section of population both marked down for sacrifice and for breeding ( ick). I don't think that the Others would be content to have only one round of babies.

Stark blood has qualities which make the family valuable.  The skin-change gene brings the power to control wights.  Bran has the most value because he is also a seer.  One Stark boy should be enough to buy the north from the Others.  

[Jaenara Belarys]

We don't really have a ready store of Stark boys, since Bran is going to be the Three Eyed Raven and Rickon, I don't know what'll happen to Rickon, but I don't think and I hope that they don't sacrifice Rickon to the Others.

[Jaenara Belarys]

2 minutes ago, Barbrey Dustin said:

The skin-change gene brings the power to control wights.  Bran has the most value because he is also a seer. 

The Others are already able to control the wights already I think. And I don't think they can sacrifice Bran to the Others, because A. He's too important a character ( at least I think) and B. He's going to be the Three Eyed Raven, so the COTF and mankind would have to be desperate.

[Jaenara Belarys]

6 minutes ago, Barbrey Dustin said:

The rangers found human bones stuffed inside a Weirwood

I'm pretty sure that these specific bones were the bones of a wight that got burned and stuffed in the tree for some reason. That's my "theory" on the bones.

[Jaenara Belarys]

2 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

nor does it excuse a nuclear holocaust.

Who said anything about a nuclear holocaust? Just asking. Nuclear holocausts, well, generally involve nuclear bombs and missiles.

[LynnS]

45 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

I've read all the books. I'd prefer not to be a prick, but if somebody just isn't listening it's kind of annoying. And to answer your question, I'm nearly in high school

I ask because I also see you posting in the Still Reading section.  Re-reads are also enlightening because you pick up stuff you missed the first time around.  You also have to back up your stuff with citations from the book.  This is a useful website for that purpose:

A Search of Ice and Fire

The point is not to argue for the sake of arguing.

[Jaenara Belarys]

I post in the Still Reading section because I see threads that interest me. Not because I'm still reading. And also, I've reread the books, including FaB and aKotSk multiple times. That's how I memorize. 

5 minutes ago, LynnS said:

The point is not to argue for the sake of arguing.

I will admit that I do sometimes argue for the sake of arguing, but everybody practically does that once or twice or a lot in their life.

[Jaenara Belarys]

BTW, thanks for the search link. It'll help find stuff if needed.

[CamiloRP]

6 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Assuming Winds of Winter has significant material with the Others at all.

Which, given it's name, is very, very likely. Also given the fact that there's the whole Hardhome situation and the fact that George intended the last third of the series to revolve around the Others, and TWOW+ADOS=the last third of the story.

 

Quote

Dany, Tyrion and co is very unlikely to get to Westeros whilst we have all of the Bolton/NW stuff to resolve. What this would amount to is Dream of Spring starting with “the others are evil” and ending with “oh yeah total misunderstanding”. I don’t see the positive  here. Compare that to the Star Trek film The Undiscovered Country where Kirks resentment and prejudice against the Klingons is introduced on the back of previous films and given space to play our throughout the story until he overcomes it. Imagine if instead Kirk had not even heard of a Klingon until the last ten percent of the story and the same big deal was made about the Federation making peace; it would not have the same impact.

So, you mean like most characters throughout the story using the phrase 'Other's take you' as a curse, children hearing stories of the monstrous Others in their beds, or Jon, Sam, Stannis, Melissandre, or anyone in the Wall, Stannis side or any member of the Freefolk thinking the Others need to be stopped, preparing to kill them, thinking them the true threat, the only war that matters, etc? How is that not enough set up?

 

Quote

It would be incredibly shallow. He has withheld substantial information from the reader and characters so it’s not subverting our expectations when he’s done so little to establish what they actually are; they’ve been a non presence in the story.

That would be the point tho. Like the characters, we 'grew up' listening storie of how evil the Others are,we are as prone to hate them as the characters, as prone to want them gone as the characters.

 

Quote

Because the humans goal is driving the military that’s invading their country out; not “genocide” if we presume they’re anything approaching our concept of life. Whether you get theatrical about that as a war between good and evil or portray it in purely mechanical terms is irrelevant; the end result is the same. If the Others refuse to talk and make no effort to do so that is entirely on them. It’s not like the prejudiced humans are refusing to talk to the Others and if they can laugh at some dying men I am not buying an Enders Game situation.

The problem is not that the humans see the Others attack them and don't think 'okay, lets talk it out' while they die. No. The problem is that no character has even had the notion of negotiating with the Others. They think that war is the only solution. 

If you are being attacked, of course, defend yourself. But if you are preparing for an incoming attack, specially one you'll most likely lose, trying to negotiate is a great idea.

 

Quote

George has avoided casting doubt on the North and has went out of his way to make them the most tolerant and Everyman faction.

Wrong. Read the OP. Some Northerners think they are better that the 'southron swords'. Yet the texts proves them wrong.

In the WOT5K the Northerner soldiers are depicted as bad as the Western soldiers ('They sleep with lions.') they abuse the Riverlands all the same, and the smallfolk dislike them as much as they do the Westerners.

 

Quote

Look how he’s leading into the North joining with the Wildlings with a minimum of grumbling. The characters being racist to the Wildlings are all Southern characters; not Northmen.

Wrong again. They grew up being told how the freefolk are savages who eat human flesh. They constantly call them savages. Most northerner houses hate them. Crowfood UMber's daughter was kidnapped by a Freefolk Raider. We only have the opinion of the Mountain Clans on the Freefolk joining the kingdom, they disagree at first, but later they agree, though it's likely them and the Freefolk are kin. 

 

Quote

So why isn’t he going to follow this existing pattern? Jon isn’t filled with hatred of the Others, he barely even dwells on them, it’s just a job to him

He's doing everything he can to stop them, to kill them, you are being disingenuous. 

 

Quote

and George presents that as being a healthy or normal mentality. He’s going to follow this pattern with the rest of the Starks and Northern characters. So they are set to be the ones who do any sort of peace with Winter nonsense. All the good Northerners will have this pragmatic stoicism and be depicted as central to solving a problem only they truly understand.

Again. This is based on nothing but you hating the books. And it's a circular argument, you say 'x will happen because y', but then say 'y is true, because x will happen'.

 

Quote

The evidence points to Dany being thrown under the bus because Dany is the character choosing war over planting trees and is associated with fire.

I mean, she's fighting slavery and gave peace a chance, also I don't see why this si relevant.

 

Quote

Any fantastical war with the Others will heavily involve her.

Based on... 

As you said, she isn't even aware of the Others, what we do know is that the character trying his hardest to stop them (i.e. kill them) is Jon, second is Bran. Two Starks.

 

Quote

If you pull he rug out from her saving the world by making the Others like the Navi from Avatar then how is that not demonising the character?

1. Again, people fighting the Others are Jon, Stannis and Bran. 

2. I didn't say make the Others like 'the Navi from Avatar' I said the Others are possibly like Humans, from Earth. I will repeat this again. I'm not saying the Others are all good and merely defending themselves from the evil humans. I'm saying Humans and Others likely hate/fear eachother because of ancient grudges and propaganda. The Others are as guilty of this conflict as the Humans. They are as wrong when they kill humans as the humans are when they kill Others. The mistake is thinking the only solution is even more war, when most wars are eneded with negotiations. The mistake on the Humans part (and likely the Others too) is thinking that to survive they must eliminate their enemy, rather than attempting anything else.

 

Quote

Saying, oh look the crazy woman’s being too quick tempered and judgemental, it makes her narrow minded; look how the smart Stark Bran gets it all sorted by talking things through. 

Again, this is something you are making up, not something that has happened or will necessarilly happen.

 

Quote

I don’t think George is going there. If he is, it’s a terrible idea and I can imagine how that would play out given the broad trajectory of the characters. Dany does not come out of such a situation in a positive light.

You can imagine it through your twisted view of the story. Of course it doesn't play out that way.

[CamiloRP]

5 hours ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

No. For humans, genocide is never, never OK. But the Others are exactly human anymore.

So, as long as the people you are exterminating are sufficiently different to you, genocide is okay?

 

Quote

This is probably correct. Except for the evil part, since the Others are most certainly evil and have been painted as evil since the very beginning of AGOT

Read any GRRM work, literally anything he wrote. He doesn't do 'fully evil'. And if he presents something as one way in the beginning, it's likely going to be different by the end.