War Won't Save The World

[CamiloRP]

2 hours ago, Julia H. said:

I am totally convinced that a "a man of the NW" is a positive description in the novels. It has nothing to do with Randyll Tarly's idea of becoming a man. 

 

The phrase is associated with responsibility, duty and self-sacrifice. 

And I especially love the contrast with this other phrase:

Axell Florent describes his own immoral attitudes as being a "man of the world". Jon, however, so often described as a man of the Night's Watch, is disgusted by him. 

 

See, the thing is most of those instances contradict Martin's viewpoint in other works of his, it's all very patriarcal and sexist, and I think him putting those things there is not him saying they are right but rather commenting on that mentality, and playing with our expectations, or simply writing it because he thinks is what those characters would say/think.

[Julia H.]

8 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

See, the thing is most of those instances contradict Martin's viewpoint in other works of his, it's all very patriarcal and sexist, and I think him putting those things there is not him saying they are right but rather commenting on that mentality, and playing with our expectations, or simply writing it because he thinks is what those characters would say/think.

The "man of the world" attitude is sexist, but "a man of the Night's Watch"? Being ready, always ready, at a moment's notice to make sacrifices for other people, living for other people while giving up all hope of personal glory and wealth, taking your duty and responsibility seriously is sexist and patriarcal? Is this really what comes through all those quotes? 

[Mourning Star]

36 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

The "man of the world" attitude is sexist, but "a man of the Night's Watch"? Being ready, always ready, at a moment's notice to make sacrifices for other people, living for other people while giving up all hope of personal glory and wealth, taking your duty and responsibility seriously is sexist and patriarcal? Is this really what comes through all those quotes? 

I think Martin explores both the positive and negative sides of the phrase, “be a man”. Much like being a “true knight”. And it’s a great topic!

I cannot read the part from the Prologue where Waymar is referred to as a man as anything but positive.

Despite the negative characterization of him from the very start, in that moment he faced fear and doom to fight the good fight. If that’s not noble then what is? “Dance with me then” still gives me chills.

And maybe the Night’s Watch as a whole reflects this dichotomy as well. In practice we come to realize they are a bunch of dirty criminals who have done countless wrongs. But their cause, protecting the realms of men, certainly appears a noble one.

Similarly with knights, we are shown what monsters they can be in practice. But, in principle, in theory, there is still a noble ideal there. At times we see this shine through.

And maybe that’s a good lesson, maybe we are all dirty rotten no good people, but that doesn’t mean we can’t aspire to a higher ideal, nor does it mean that ideal is meaningless or evil just because we aren’t perfect or others misuse its name. 

I think what really matters is if in those important moments, when push comes to shove, we live up to the aspiration and face it nobly and bravely, even if we are afraid.

[Julia H.]

1 hour ago, Mourning Star said:

I would go a step further even, and say that Valyrians and their counterparts here (for lack of a better term), come from the same root.

We see the Daynes, for instance, in Westeros with Valyrian features long before Aegon’s conquest, perhaps even before Valyria itself. And even the gargoyles of the First Keep in Winterfell raises questions as it almost explicitly couldn’t have been built by the First Men.

I think there is some evidence to suggest the Weirwoods are the link between mankind and the others, from the frozen ones on Bloodraven’s hill being the icy spikes from bran’s falling dream, to the first men having built walls round them all (godswoods). With their red leaves it isn’t even clear they need the sun. 

The Daynes have "Valyrian" features and they are not simply from before the conquest, I think their family in Westeros may predate the Valyrian empire even? Still, based on the name of their ancestral sword, they are more likely to have a history of fighting the Long Night than setting the Others on the world.

But basically there may have been Valyrians (or their counterparts) with both fire and ice, and currently they are all Targaryens, Daenerys with the dragons and Bloodraven, the white dragon (ice dragon?) with the Others.

1 hour ago, Mourning Star said:

I don’t think they can, or should want to… that was kind of my point. I agree, at the end of the day the answer balance. Peace not war, love not hate. Mercy is harder than vengeance, but never a mistake. 

Sure, but there is the prerequisite that mercy and peace are meaningful terms for both parties. Are the Others just Winter a bit out of control but otherwise the kind of guys who can be persuaded to coexist with life-forms they supposedly hate, to give up the practice of taking away human babies in exchange for peace, and to leave the dead alone; or do they personify a force (human-operated or otherwise) which has the single purpose or the unfortunate side-effect of eventually destroying all life as we know it?

I agree about the balance, the question is what needs to be done to reestablish balance.  

[Julia H.]

12 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

I think Martin explores both the positive and negative sides of the phrase, “be a man”. Much like being a “true knight”. And it’s a great topic!

I cannot read the part from the Prologue where Waymar is referred to as a man as anything but positive.

Despite the negative characterization of him from the very start, in that moment he faced fear and doom to fight the good fight. If that’s not noble then what is? “Dance with me then” still gives me chills.

And maybe the Night’s Watch as a whole reflects this dichotomy as well. In practice we come to realize they are a bunch of dirty criminals who have done countless wrongs. But their cause, protecting the realms of men, certainly appears a noble one.

Similarly with knights, we are shown what monsters they can be in practice. But, in principle, in theory, there is still a noble ideal there. At times we see this shine through.

And maybe that’s a good lesson, maybe we are all dirty rotten no good people, but that doesn’t mean we can’t aspire to a higher ideal, nor does it mean that ideal is meaningless or evil just because we aren’t perfect or others misuse its name. 

I think what really matters is if in those important moments, when push comes to shove, we live up to the aspiration and face it nobly and bravely, even if we are afraid.

I totally agree with this. One of the notable things about the phrase "a man of the Night's Watch" is that it is always used when certain values are being held up in complete contrast with the watchmen being a bunch of criminals (and sometimes just green boys who have trespassed in a stupid moment). What I mean is that most of them start out as criminals, green boys, outcasts, or perhaps entitled nobility (bastards or younger sons), but each has a chance to become a man of the Night's Watch in the best sense of the word, and in the case of Jon, we can see that this phrase gives him strength in difficult moments. Ser Waymar's brave moment absolutely highlights this.

[Mourning Star]

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

The Daynes have "Valyrian" features and they are not simply from before the conquest, I think their family in Westeros may predate the Valyrian empire even? Still, based on the name of their ancestral sword, they are more likely to have a history of fighting the Long Night than setting the Others on the world.

I agree, mostly… I think that the Night’s King caused the Long Night in the first place, and he was the brother of a Stark.

I also suspect the Starks and Daynes share a common ancestry.

Quote

But basically there may have been Valyrians (or their counterparts) with both fire and ice, and currently they are all Targaryens, Daenerys with the dragons and Bloodraven, the white dragon (ice dragon?) with the Others.

Bloodraven is also a Blackwood, and the Blackwoods were supposedly Kings before the Starks forced them south … and Dany has Dayne blood as well as Targ.

Quote

Sure, but there is the prerequisite that mercy and peace are meaningful terms for both parties. Are the Others just Winter a bit out of control but otherwise the kind of guys who can be persuaded to coexist with life-forms they supposedly hate, to give up the practice of taking away human babies in exchange for peace, and to leave the dead alone; or do they personify a force (human-operated or otherwise) which has the single purpose or the unfortunate side-effect of eventually destroying all life as we know it?

I have theories, but there isn’t a lot to work with… 

I think Craster has Targ blood as the son of Aemon, and it’s possible his sons are taken not for peace, but because there is power in kings blood. How exactly they get used, not sure… perhaps something like “only death can pay for life” or waking monsters from stone.

Quote

I agree about the balance, the question is what needs to be done to reestablish balance.  

I’m not convinced the Others can’t be dealt with, and suspect that the story’s of knights riding around long before the Andals and old heroes being called white swords (Kingsguard) may refer to Others in Westeros before the Wall was built. In particular Symeon Star Eyes with his two bladed weapon (a sword without a hilt, sorcery) and Serwyn of the mirror sheild (reflective like the armor of the Others) who slew a dragon (long before the Vlayrians came to Westeros). Symeon seeing the hell hounds fighting at the Nightfort may well refer to direwolves/starks fighting, as in the Night’s King being cast down by his brother.

Speculation, obviously, but fun!

[CamiloRP]

3 hours ago, Julia H. said:

The "man of the world" attitude is sexist, but "a man of the Night's Watch"? Being ready, always ready, at a moment's notice to make sacrifices for other people, living for other people while giving up all hope of personal glory and wealth, taking your duty and responsibility seriously is sexist and patriarcal? Is this really what comes through all those quotes? 

The patriarcal and sexist thing is thinking someone will become a man via violence, Randyll Tarly hoped Sam would become a man of the Night's Watch in this way. It's framing violence, stoicism, a lack of empathy and emotion and such as being 'manly' while showing emotion and displaying empathy is being a 'not man' if you pardon the Dying Of The Light pun. GRRM protagonists often battle people who think them 'notmen' because they are empathic and display emotions, again, Armageddon Rag being a prime example of it. And, given that George was always a nerdy, feminist hippie, who consciously objected to the Vietnam war, we can assume many people in his life told him, more than once to 'be a man', maybe even 'be a man of the army' or some BS like that.

The other part of he phrase ("of the Night's Watch") is also something George doesn't seem to view as inherently valuable, after all, Chett is a man of the Night's Watch, and so are a bunch of other assholes, and, at lest my read of the story, is how outsourcing morality is not necessarily a good thing, we see this with Jaime, obviously, but we also see this in ADWD with Jon, and all his struggles regarding when to keep his vows and when not to. We can discuss if he broke his vows by letting the Freefolk though, or by sending Mance to rescue Arya, I don't think he did, but that's not important, because if saving people is wrong just because you made an oath, then what's wrong is the oath, and I think the story explores that a lot. 

So yeah, I don't think being a 'man of the Night's Watch' is necessarily a good thing, there can surely be good 'men of the Night's Watch' and there are, but not all of them are, and a character becoming a 'man of the Night's Watch' doesn't mean that character gets better in anyway, like joining the army doesn't make you better, and besides personal politics, I think it goes against what the author thinks.  

[Julia H.]

2 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

The patriarcal and sexist thing is thinking someone will become a man via violence, Randyll Tarly hoped Sam would become a man of the Night's Watch in this way. It's framing violence, stoicism, a lack of empathy and emotion and such as being 'manly' while showing emotion and displaying empathy is being a 'not man' if you pardon the Dying Of The Light pun. GRRM protagonists often battle people who think them 'notmen' because they are empathic and display emotions, again, Armageddon Rag being a prime example of it. And, given that George was always a nerdy, feminist hippie, who consciously objected to the Vietnam war, we can assume many people in his life told him, more than once to 'be a man', maybe even 'be a man of the army' or some BS like that.

The other part of he phrase ("of the Night's Watch") is also something George doesn't seem to view as inherently valuable, after all, Chett is a man of the Night's Watch, and so are a bunch of other assholes, and, at lest my read of the story, is how outsourcing morality is not necessarily a good thing, we see this with Jaime, obviously, but we also see this in ADWD with Jon, and all his struggles regarding when to keep his vows and when not to. We can discuss if he broke his vows by letting the Freefolk though, or by sending Mance to rescue Arya, I don't think he did, but that's not important, because if saving people is wrong just because you made an oath, then what's wrong is the oath, and I think the story explores that a lot. 

So yeah, I don't think being a 'man of the Night's Watch' is necessarily a good thing, there can surely be good 'men of the Night's Watch' and there are, but not all of them are, and a character becoming a 'man of the Night's Watch' doesn't mean that character gets better in anyway, like joining the army doesn't make you better, and besides personal politics, I think it goes against what the author thinks.  

Well, I was speaking of the phrase "a man of the Night's Watch", not how GRRM uses the word "man" and the phrase "Night's Watch" separately. It is about the significance of a specific phrase, and not about all the characters in a specific organization being great men or exemplary characters. Not all black brothers are automatically described as "men of the Night's Watch" just because they have taken the black or because they are violent or lack empathy. It is a description that usually needs to be earned by courage, responsibility, willingness to self-sacrifice, or is used as an encouragement, something to draw strength from in difficult situations.

Sam never becomes the "man" his father wanted him to be, but he totally becomes a man of the Night's Watch, and yet, he retains the ability to empathize and have emotions. Jon is about the most empathetic character in the series, yet, he is often described and identified as a man of the Night's Watch. Ser Waymar is recognized as a man of the Night's Watch in his final, heroic moment, and it is a huge improvement compared to the wilful and entitled noble boy he has appeared before. In contrast, Chett is also in the organization, but he is never described as "a man of the Night's Watch", nor does he find encouragement in such an identity.

[CamiloRP]

On 7/1/2021 at 8:56 PM, Julia H. said:

Well, I was speaking of the phrase "a man of the Night's Watch", not how GRRM uses the word "man" and the phrase "Night's Watch" separately. It is about the significance of a specific phrase, and not about all the characters in a specific organization being great men or exemplary characters.

I get how it can be confusing, but that was not my point 'becoming a man' is in general seen as something bad in GRRM stories, as are violence-focused organizations, as is outsourcing morality. In fact, the belief that one becomes a man through enduring violence and suffering is held by GRRM's most despicable and cartoonishly evil villains, like Randyll Tarly or Slum's dad. And becoming "a man of the Night's Watch", is becoming a man through violence and suffering, it also means outsourcing your morality to an external code and joining a violent organization, so I doubt it's a good thing, if anything I think he's playing with our expectations.

And look at the quotes you provided, Waymar becomes a man of the Night's Watch when he chooses to fight, to engage in violence, and it's used by Qhorin to justify Jon Executing Ygritte and himself.

 

Quote

Not all black brothers are automatically described as "men of the Night's Watch" just because they have taken the black or because they are violent or lack empathy.

Of course they aren't, people aren't monolithic, what I'm saying is that I doubt that being 'a man of blank' means something good when coming from GRRM, a man who, throughout his career depicted people who speak similar phrases as villains, specially when being a man of the Night's Watch means being a soldier and an assassin 999 out of a thousand times, and George is against both.

 

Quote

It is a description that usually needs to be earned by courage, responsibility, willingness to self-sacrifice, or is used as an encouragement, something to draw strength from in difficult situations.

Like the phrases being 'a man of the army' or 'a man of the Klu Klux Klan' or 'a man of the reich' where probably used, and in all these cases, in the end, it all means violence.

 

Quote

Sam never becomes the "man" his father wanted him to be, but he totally becomes a man of the Night's Watch, and yet, he retains the ability to empathize and have emotions. Jon is about the most empathetic character in the series, yet, he is often described and identified as a man of the Night's Watch.

Absolutely, I'm not saying being a man of the NIght's Watch is a bad thing, but I seriously doubt, given GRRM's past work, life history and personal politics, that he would associate the phrase with an automatic good value.

[Julia H.]

10 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

And becoming "a man of the Night's Watch", is becoming a man through violence and suffering, it also means outsourcing your morality to an external code and joining a violent organization, so I doubt it's a good thing, if anything I think he's playing with our expectations.

Except that it is not how the phrase is used. Let me repeat, I am not talking about whether joining this organization is viewed as good or bad. I am talking about what a specific phrase signifies. This phrase is associated with sacrifice, heroism, duty and responsibility.

10 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

And look at the quotes you provided, Waymar becomes a man of the Night's Watch when he chooses to fight, to engage in violence, and it's used by Qhorin to justify Jon Executing Ygritte and himself.

Waymar becomes "a man of the Night's Watch" when he bravely faces an enemy against which he has no chance (and he does not even kill anyone). He was not described like that while he was merely hunting wildlings, which was not exactly a peaceful mission either. It is his heroic last deed that earns him the title.

Quote

His hands trembled from the weight of it, or perhaps from the cold. Yet in that moment, Will thought, he was a boy no longer, but a man of the Night's Watch.

Ser Waymar may have trembled from the "weight of the sword" (i.e. the weight of his duty) or from the cold, but to me this sentence directly connects to the idea that the only time a man can be brave is when he is afraid. "A boy no longer": He has grown up, he does not whimper or run away as a child would do, but faces the danger. Let's see the other quotes I provided.

"A man of the Night's Watch lives his life for the realm. Not for a king, nor a lord, nor the honor of this house or that house, neither for gold nor glory nor a woman's love, but for the realm, and all the people in it."

That is quite clearly about a life of self-sacrifice for the benefit of other people. Not about violence. Speaking of that, you don't necessarily need to do anything violent just because you are part of the organization. Stewards mainly do maintenance and household work, normally they only fight if the castle is attacked. The Watch needs all sorts of people, not only the aggressive ones. Maester Aemon was no fighter and yet, this is how Sam remembers him:

"When he was born they named him for a hero who had died too young, but though he lived a long long time, his own life was no less heroic."

Violence and heroism are two different concepts.

  Quote

"Do you take me for a servant?"

"No," Maester Aemon said, from the back of the sept. Clydas helped him stand. "We took you for a man of Night's Watch … but perhaps we were wrong in that."

This exchange is when Jon objects to becoming a steward rather than a ranger. Now, rangers are fighters, stewards are not. Yet, Maester Aemon explicitly says they considered Jon "a man of the Night's Watch" when they made him a steward, but if he  does not accept this duty, perhaps he is not. A man of the Night's Watch accepts his duties and does not seek personal glory in military assignments. Being a man of the Night's Watch is about serving. Not about being a servant, but about serving the good of the realm. 

  Quote

"Are you a brother of the Night's Watch … or only a bastard boy who wants to play at war?"

Here an explicit contrast is made between "playing at war", i.e. useless, irresponsible violence, and being a brother of the Night's Watch (and that's not even the standard phrase of "a man of the Night's Watch", which I'm talking about, only a similar one). Playing at war is a sign of immaturity ("boy"), not what you expect from a brother of the Night's Watch. 

 

  Quote

"Then you must do what needs be done," Qhorin Halfhand said. "You are the blood of Winterfell and a man of the Night's Watch."

No, Qhorin definitely does not tell Jon to kill Ygritte or justify a killing. Rather than outsourcing morality, he gives Jon agency to decide and do what he thinks is necessary, and that includes following his own conscience (which Jon does). Later Qhorin explains that clearly:

"If I had needed her dead, I would have left her with Ebben, or done the thing myself."

"I did not command it. I told you to do what needed to be done, and left you to decide what that would be."

Being a man of the Night's Watch gives you responsibility. To be a man of the Night's Watch, it is not enough to be able to blindly follow orders (or kill whenever you have a chance), you need to be able to make your own decisions. Killing Ygritte is no prerequisite for Qhorin to consider Jon a man of the Night's Watch.

  Quote

"He is half a boy still."

"No," said Qhorin, "he is a man of the Night's Watch."

Here, a man of the Night's Watch is again contrasted with being a boy. Only an adult can act with responsibility and carry out difficult duties. 

 

  Quote

"Our honor means no more than our lives, so long as the realm is safe. Are you a man of the Night's Watch?"

"Yes, but—"

"There is no but, Jon Snow. You are, or you are not."

Again, the emphasis is on selflessness and sacrifice, not on violence. 

  Quote

The wildlings had taken him for an oathbreaker, but in his heart he was still a man of the Night's Watch, doing the last duty that Qhorin Halfhand had laid on him. 

Duty and perseverance.

[Julia H.]

Sorry to continue this in a different post, but in the last one I wasn't able to write outside the quote boxes.

7 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

Of course they aren't, people aren't monolithic, what I'm saying is that I doubt that being 'a man of blank' means something good when coming from GRRM, a man who, throughout his career depicted people who speak similar phrases as villains, specially when being a man of the Night's Watch means being a soldier and an assassin 999 out of a thousand times, and George is against both.

Then he is doing a very bad job because he consistenly uses this particular phrase in a positive context. When black brothers commit despicable acts or act irresponsibly, they are never described as "men of the Night's Watch". And several times it is explicitly emphasized in the novels, that a person is not necessarily a man of the Night's Watch just because he is part of the organization in actual fact.

Quote

Like the phrases being 'a man of the army' or 'a man of the Klu Klux Klan' or 'a man of the reich' where probably used, and in all these cases, in the end, it all means violence.

The second part of the phrase obviously makes a difference. (I don't think being committed is inherently wrong.) GRRM uses the phrase "a man of the world" in a clear bad light. A true man of the Night's Watch is anything but a man of the world (as is often emphasized). It is not by accident that Axell Florent offers the latter phrase to include Jon and Jon is clearly disgusted. 

ETA: The word man is not a negative word in the books. You make much of Tarly's approach to "becoming a man", but that's not the only context in which man is used. For example, "the realms of men" means human kind in general (and Jon Snow even includes giants) - somehow I don't think it is negative.

Quote

 

Absolutely, I'm not saying being a man of the NIght's Watch is a bad thing, but I seriously doubt, given GRRM's past work, life history and personal politics, that he would associate the phrase with an automatic good value.

I don't know about automatic, it all comes from what he has written. In my opinion, there is a clear contrast between convicted thieves and other criminals, abandoned boys and bastards, penniless fourth sons who all take the black and between those select few (who are typically not the most violent or cruel guys) who become worthy of the description "a man of the Night's Watch", and GRRM is rather consistent on this. 

ETA: This may be a somewhat different topic, but I find it very interesting that the only person who has killed an Other so far is very emphatically one of the least violent or aggressive adult characters in the book and at the same time one of the most human (in terms of both merits and weaknesses) and most humane characters, Samwell Tarly. He also happens to be a man of the Night's Watch (i.e., someone who is described as such, not just someone who has joined). All this cannot be an accident. 

[Ivan Tsarevich]

This thread has taken a somewhat interesting turn.

On 7/1/2021 at 8:27 PM, CamiloRP said:

See, the thing is most of those instances contradict Martin's viewpoint in other works of his, it's all very patriarcal and sexist, and I think him putting those things there is not him saying they are right but rather commenting on that mentality, and playing with our expectations, or simply writing it because he thinks is what those characters would say/think.

This reply contains two things which seem to be prevalent in a lot of what you say. First, comparison to the previous works by GRRM. That's, of course, an excellent contribution. I personally have not read any of those (just most of the stuff in ASoIaF universe) and your views on them provide valuable context. That said, I'd like to point out that just because you have knowledge on those, those who don't (like me) do not need to simply uncritically accept your (or anyone else's) views on them. If we had read them, we might see things in different way. What's more, even if things are in certain way in his previous works, that does not necessarily mean they also are so in ASoIaF.

And second, I sort of wonder if what I'm seeing on this thread is at least in part a rather typical left-wing rejection of the appeals to values of loyalty and authority, which I think can be seen in some posts here.

- - -

Edit: Having perhaps shared more content than I should've, I've removed this rather important section of my post.

- - -

Is this what you mean when you speak of sexism and patriarchality? Or are your concerns wider or completely different?

If this is part of your thinking, then I must simply state that I disagree with you on that. I consider the three values to be both understandable and possibly even virtuous. They are not inherently evil.

On 7/2/2021 at 12:11 AM, CamiloRP said:

The patriarcal and sexist thing is thinking someone will become a man via violence, Randyll Tarly hoped Sam would become a man of the Night's Watch in this way. It's framing violence, stoicism, a lack of empathy and emotion and such as being 'manly' while showing emotion and displaying empathy is being a 'not man' if you pardon the Dying Of The Light pun. GRRM protagonists often battle people who think them 'notmen' because they are empathic and display emotions, again, Armageddon Rag being a prime example of it. And, given that George was always a nerdy, feminist hippie, who consciously objected to the Vietnam war, we can assume many people in his life told him, more than once to 'be a man', maybe even 'be a man of the army' or some BS like that.

I think this question needs to be asked: has somebody actually suggested that someone will become a man via violence? Because I for one didn't read @Julia H.'s posts that way.

Also, while I obviously do not know, I wonder whether my own previous posts, such as this one, have had influence on this discussion. If so, then FYI, I don't think I've made such a claim either.

On 7/3/2021 at 8:05 AM, CamiloRP said:

I get how it can be confusing, but that was not my point 'becoming a man' is in general seen as something bad in GRRM stories, as are violence-focused organizations, as is outsourcing morality. In fact, the belief that one becomes a man through enduring violence and suffering is held by GRRM's most despicable and cartoonishly evil villains, like Randyll Tarly or Slum's dad. And becoming "a man of the Night's Watch", is becoming a man through violence and suffering, it also means outsourcing your morality to an external code and joining a violent organization, so I doubt it's a good thing, if anything I think he's playing with our expectations.

Here you speak of violence and suffering, which reminds me of what I said in my linked exchange with another poster. Anyway, your argument seems fallacious to me, as it invokes guilt by association. Just because someone (A) says something which is also said by other, negatively viewed people (B), does not mean that the statement itself is faulty, or that whoever says so (A) must be same as the latter (B).

On 7/3/2021 at 8:05 AM, CamiloRP said:

Of course they aren't, people aren't monolithic, what I'm saying is that I doubt that being 'a man of blank' means something good when coming from GRRM, a man who, throughout his career depicted people who speak similar phrases as villains, specially when being a man of the Night's Watch means being a soldier and an assassin 999 out of a thousand times, and George is against both.

As far as I know George does not condemn all violence, based on his apparent comments about WWII.

[gruff one]

Thanks for the post. As you said part of the chapter is very disturbing.

[CamiloRP]

14 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Except that it is not how the phrase is used. Let me repeat, I am not talking about whether joining this organization is viewed as good or bad. I am talking about what a specific phrase signifies. This phrase is associated with sacrifice, heroism, duty and responsibility.

Yes, I understand, but the conception of this post was going beyond how things are presented in the text and looking at them through the context of the life of the author and his other work, as well as his political ideology and moral values, in order to try to uncover any future twist or subversions, for example, the Others are presented as a pure force of evil in the story, and no mention of them frames them as anything different, yet, while analyzing certain things (the etymology of their name, other GRRM works, and George's ideology and morals) we can try and guess some things about their true nature and what George would want to use them to comment on. I'm proposing in here the same thing to be done with 'a man of the Night's Watch'. for George to deconstruct the idea of it being something inherently good, he first needs to present the idea, same thing with the Others, so he has to have the phrase be used in a positive way before in turns into something more fowl, which I would guess would be more true to him, as I posed before. Then again, I don't think the phrase is always used in a good way, as for example, it being a reason to murder an unarmed person (Ygritte).

 

14 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Then he is doing a very bad job because he consistenly uses this particular phrase in a positive context. When black brothers commit despicable acts or act irresponsibly, they are never described as "men of the Night's Watch". And several times it is explicitly emphasized in the novels, that a person is not necessarily a man of the Night's Watch just because he is part of the organization in actual fact.

But that's how it works in the real world, no? When a soldier does a cool thing, he's a "true man of the army", but when he does something 'uncool' the phrase thrown around is 'this is not how men of the army act' putting the blame on the individual instead of the institution, therefore ridding it of any responsability.

 

Quote

ETA: The word man is not a negative word in the books. You make much of Tarly's approach to "becoming a man", but that's not the only context in which man is used. For example, "the realms of men" means human kind in general (and Jon Snow even includes giants) - somehow I don't think it is negative.

And I never meant anything of the sort, but 'a man of the Night's Watch' and 'becoming a man' are tied to the same toxic ideals of masculinity.

 

 

[CamiloRP]

Well fuck me, this is the third time I write this, I hate my computer.

 

11 hours ago, TsarGrey said:

This reply contains two things which seem to be prevalent in a lot of what you say. First, comparison to the previous works by GRRM. That's, of course, an excellent contribution. I personally have not read any of those (just most of the stuff in ASoIaF universe) and your views on them provide valuable context. That said, I'd like to point out that just because you have knowledge on those, those who don't (like me) do not need to simply uncritically accept your (or anyone else's) views on them. If we had read them, we might see things in different way.

I agree with this, but George's other works are an important part of how I read and analyze ASOIAF, at least from the view point of authorial intent, and if I feel some of his works are relevant to the discussion, I'm gonna bring them up.

 

Quote

 What's more, even if things are in certain way in his previous works, that does not necessarily mean they also are so in ASoIaF.

Again, I also agree with this, we all change constantly, but I think the values being talked about here are too close to his core, and therefore, harder to change, and I don't think he has changed them, based on interviews and such.

Having said this, I don't know Martin, and I don't pretend to, for all I know all of his public persona is a complete lie, but we work with what we got.

 

Quote

And second, I sort of wonder if what I'm seeing on this thread is at least in part a rather typical left-wing rejection of the appeals to values of loyalty and authority, which I think can be seen in some posts here.

I don't know if what I'm about to say has anything to do with what you are saying here, and I have said it before (and it comes up again your comment), but I'm not talking about my ideology here, I'm talking of what I perceive to be George's ideology, which I don't agree much with as, for starters, I'm not a pacifist.

 

Quote

Is this what you mean when you speak of sexism and patriarchality? Or are your concerns wider or completely different?

If this is part of your thinking, then I must simply state that I disagree with you on that. I consider the three values to be both understandable and possibly even virtuous. They are not inherently evil.

I'm not entirely sure to what the 'this' in the first phrase refers to, but what I mean when I talk about sexism is the idea that any characteristic is inherently male, be it violence, honor, love, hate, compassion, or whatever.

 

Quote

I think this question needs to be asked: has somebody actually suggested that someone will become a man via violence? Because I for one didn't read @Julia H.'s posts that way.

No, no one has, I was purely talking about the story or the characters, and I'd like to apologize to @Julia H. if read as if I was 'accusing' you of sexism, I wasn't.

 

Quote

Here you speak of violence and suffering, which reminds me of what I said in my linked exchange with another poster. Anyway, your argument seems fallacious to me, as it invokes guilt by association. Just because someone (A) says something which is also said by other, negatively viewed people (B), does not mean that the statement itself is faulty, or that whoever says so (A) must be same as the latter (B).

If we were talking about real people in the real world it would be guilt by association, but I'm trying to analyze the authorial intent, and I belive @Julia H. was doing the same thing, after all the 'man of the NW' bit spans several different characters, and if I see a couple of characters depicted as complete monsters talking in a clear and defined way, I have a hard time seeing a similar way of speaking as a signifier for good.

I'm gonna try to clear this up with an example:

Let's say we are reading a book by an author whom we know hates people who apologize, even in the book we have a couple of characters who constantly apologize while committing heinous deeds, and the same pattern repeats throughout the author's work. In the middle of the book a new character shows up, they seem like a good person, but after a while, we realize they say 'sorry' a few times. Now, in the real world, this means nothing, but we know the author's opinion on this and we have a few examples in their work, even tho we most likely think apologizing is a good thing to do, we would surely mistrust that character, because this world was created by the author and influenced by their worldview and ideology.

 

Quote

As far as I know George does not condemn all violence, based on his apparent comments about WWII.

No, he doesn't, but the NW isn't fighting nazis either.

[Ivan Tsarevich]

5 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

I agree with this, but George's other works are an important part of how I read and analyze ASOIAF, at least from the view point of authorial intent, and if I feel some of his works are relevant to the discussion, I'm gonna bring them up.

Feel free. As said, I for one think that's a valuable contribution.

5 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

Again, I also agree with this, we all change constantly, but I think the values being talked about here are too close to his core, and therefore, harder to change, and I don't think he has changed them, based on interviews and such.

Having said this, I don't know Martin, and I don't pretend to, for all I know all of his public persona is a complete lie, but we work with what we got.

It would not be particularly surprising if his views had somewhat changed as he's gotten more years and experience. Of course George is an old hippy, with whatever that entails. But it would hardly be surprising if he understood and perhaps even valued some values which may be more associated with conservatives. Is he also not a lapsed Catholic?

I think Ned, for one, is an example of a character with a rather well-rounded conservative morality.

5 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

I don't know if what I'm about to say has anything to do with what you are saying here, and I have said it before (and it comes up again your comment), but I'm not talking about my ideology here, I'm talking of what I perceive to be George's ideology, which I don't agree much with as, for starters, I'm not a pacifist.

Okay.

5 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

I'm not entirely sure to what the 'this' in the first phrase refers to, but what I mean when I talk about sexism is the idea that any characteristic is inherently male, be it violence, honor, love, hate, compassion, or whatever.

I think left-leaning people may treat more traditional values with their own bias and prejudices, which may actually be unjustified. 'This' refers to that.

5 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

If we were talking about real people in the real world it would be guilt by association, but I'm trying to analyze the authorial intent, and I belive @Julia H. was doing the same thing, after all the 'man of the NW' bit spans several different characters, and if I see a couple of characters depicted as complete monsters talking in a clear and defined way, I have a hard time seeing a similar way of speaking as a signifier for good.

I'm gonna try to clear this up with an example:

Let's say we are reading a book by an author whom we know hates people who apologize, even in the book we have a couple of characters who constantly apologize while committing heinous deeds, and the same pattern repeats throughout the author's work. In the middle of the book a new character shows up, they seem like a good person, but after a while, we realize they say 'sorry' a few times. Now, in the real world, this means nothing, but we know the author's opinion on this and we have a few examples in their work, even tho we most likely think apologizing is a good thing to do, we would surely mistrust that character, because this world was created by the author and influenced by their worldview and ideology.

I think that essentially amounts to circumstantial evidence, so to say. That is, useful, but does not actually prove the thing yet.

I have zero problem with this sort of thing, especially with a writer like GRRM, who among other things uses parallels. Besides providing valuable insight, it can be fun, and may also turn out to be correct. But if you then make conclusions about them, don't be surprised if others don't necessarily follow you.

By the way, are you aware of The Death of the Author?

5 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

No, he doesn't, but the NW isn't fighting nazis either.

No, they are supposed to fight the Others. If you argue that they are not a force for evil, that's your prerogative... but they may be.

[SeanF]

On 7/2/2021 at 12:56 AM, Julia H. said:

Well, I was speaking of the phrase "a man of the Night's Watch", not how GRRM uses the word "man" and the phrase "Night's Watch" separately. It is about the significance of a specific phrase, and not about all the characters in a specific organization being great men or exemplary characters. Not all black brothers are automatically described as "men of the Night's Watch" just because they have taken the black or because they are violent or lack empathy. It is a description that usually needs to be earned by courage, responsibility, willingness to self-sacrifice, or is used as an encouragement, something to draw strength from in difficult situations.

Sam never becomes the "man" his father wanted him to be, but he totally becomes a man of the Night's Watch, and yet, he retains the ability to empathize and have emotions. Jon is about the most empathetic character in the series, yet, he is often described and identified as a man of the Night's Watch. Ser Waymar is recognized as a man of the Night's Watch in his final, heroic moment, and it is a huge improvement compared to the wilful and entitled noble boy he has appeared before. In contrast, Chett is also in the organization, but he is never described as "a man of the Night's Watch", nor does he find encouragement in such an identity.

I think you’re correct.

Is it the author's intent that we should view Sam as an immoral person because he killed an Other, and rescued Gilly and her child?

Very much the reverse, IMHO.  The author's point seems to me to be that people who are not naturally heroic can perform heroic deeds, like his near namesake, Sam Gamgee.

[Julia H.]

12 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

Yes, I understand, but the conception of this post was going beyond how things are presented in the text and looking at them through the context of the life of the author and his other work, as well as his political ideology and moral values, in order to try to uncover any future twist or subversions, for example, the Others are presented as a pure force of evil in the story, and no mention of them frames them as anything different, yet, while analyzing certain things (the etymology of their name, other GRRM works, and George's ideology and morals) we can try and guess some things about their true nature and what George would want to use them to comment on.

Comparing several works of the same author is an interesting and valid contribution to the analysis. The same is true for the author's life and views, but here I would go a bit more carefully. I would never presume that I know what exactly was on the author's mind when writing this or that piece, let alone use what I think the author thinks as evidence. Comparing text to text (including different writings of the same author) is, I think, a more reliable way to go because it is the reader's job to interpret texts, while reading the author's mind is not. 

Having said that, I also think that a given piece of work should also stand on its own. Ultimately, the message of a given work of literature is what that work of literature conveys, and it will not be changed by a possibly very different message coming from another work of the same author (or even by the secret intentions of the author), though, of course, such differences will be noted and analysed by anyone studying the oeuvre of the author in question. 

I have given you quotes to support my interpretation. If I understand you correctly (and please,correct me if I don't), you are saying that all the positive context of a single phrase I have been discussing will somehow be negated in the coming volumes because of GRRM's other works and his mentality. Perhaps it will be so, but for the time being, a text-based analysis of ASOIAF does not support it, so we'll just have to wait and see.

12 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

Then again, I don't think the phrase is always used in a good way, as for example, it being a reason to murder an unarmed person (Ygritte).

I still need to see a quote where the phrase is used in a negative context.

As I proved above (with quotes), it is defintely not used as a reason to kill Ygritte. Qhorin tells Jon to do, as a man of the Night's Watch, what needs be done, and Jon lets Ygritte go. Later Qhorin explains that deciding what needed to be done was part of the assignment, and Jon never had orders to kill Ygritte. 

Quote

 

But that's how it works in the real world, no? When a soldier does a cool thing, he's a "true man of the army", but when he does something 'uncool' the phrase thrown around is 'this is not how men of the army act' putting the blame on the individual instead of the institution, therefore ridding it of any responsability.

Again, this is not what I'm speaking about. The phrase is used as a code by the author (as other phrases also are), and whenever it turns up, it is clearly associated with specific values, and it is often used in contrast with certain other values (such as those relating to mindless violence). 

Quote

 

And I never meant anything of the sort, but 'a man of the Night's Watch' and 'becoming a man' are tied to the same toxic ideals of masculinity.

 

 

Randyll Tarly's idea of being a man, is, indeed toxic, but an important point is that all he achieves is turning Sam into a self-proclaimed coward. However, remaining a child is not an option. Sam becomes a man in the Night's Watch, where they uphold the idea that the Night's Watch needs all sorts of men, and, instead of beating him to death, they decide to use his skills and intelligence and other useful qualities. Jon and Maester Aemon endorse diversity, which is in sharp contrast with Randyll's narrow-minded views, and it works as an antidote for Sam. He finds friends and acceptance in the NW and an occupation that he likes and can do well. Eventually, he can even pursue the goal he used to dream about, when he is sent to the Citadel. In the Night's Watch, Sam is able to find his place in life and achieve his potential. Killing an Other may be a rite of passage, but it is probably not the most important aspect of Sam becoming a man (of the Night's Watch). 

Saying that becoming a man is a bad thing because Randyll Tarly has a horrible approach to what a man is or should be is like saying that love is a bad thing because of how Petyr "loves" Catelyn and what Petyr's idea of and approach to love is. 

 

 

[Julia H.]

I decided to check out the instances where GRRM uses the phrase "become a man" in ASOIAF. A Search of Ice and Fire gave me zero examples in the five books.

I also looked for Sam's description of the degradation he suffered in his father's hands. This is what I found:

Quote

Whatever pride his lord father might have felt at Samwell's birth vanished as the boy grew up plump, soft, and awkward. Sam loved to listen to music and make his own songs, to wear soft velvets, to play in the castle kitchen beside the cooks, drinking in the rich smells as he snitched lemon cakes and blueberry tarts. His passions were books and kittens and dancing, clumsy as he was. But he grew ill at the sight of blood, and wept to see even a chicken slaughtered. A dozen masters-at-arms came and went at Horn Hill, trying to turn Samwell into the knight his father wanted. The boy was cursed and caned, slapped and starved. One man had him sleep in his chainmail to make him more martial. Another dressed him in his mother's clothing and paraded him through the bailey to shame him into valor. He only grew fatter and more frightened, until Lord Randyll's disappointment turned to anger and then to loathing. "One time," Sam confided, his voice dropping from a whisper, "two men came to the castle, warlocks from Qarth with white skin and blue lips. They slaughtered a bull aurochs and made me bathe in the hot blood, but it didn't make me brave as they'd promised. I got sick and retched. Father had them scourged."

Apparently, GRRM does not say Randyll wanted Sam to become a man or that he wanted to make him a man, instead, he uses phrases like turning Sam into a knight, to make him martial, valiant and brave (very specfic values). Nothing about becoming a man. I'm beginning to doubt that the phrase turns up in the five books at all in any context (since the search engine didn't find it). As per GRRM's words, Randyll is interested in knightly and martial qualities, not what sort of a man his son will become. 

[CamiloRP]

7 hours ago, TsarGrey said:

I have zero problem with this sort of thing, especially with a writer like GRRM, who among other things uses parallels. Besides providing valuable insight, it can be fun, and may also turn out to be correct. But if you then make conclusions about them, don't be surprised if others don't necessarily follow you.

Oh yeah, I don't take it as a given either, it's just what I think it leads to, what I get from this series, I'm completely open to being wrong.

 

Quote

By the way, are you aware of The Death of the Author?

ha! yes, I thought about bringing it up in that post, I majored in media studies, so I know it well, and actually use it often as a means to analyze different aspects of media, but I also believe one cannot entirely divorce the work from the author, specially when you know a great deal about said authors life or past work, and I completely ignored Barthes here because I was explicitly analyzing authorial intent, as I am trying to 'predict' what will happen in the story, that is, what the author is most likely to write about rather than just analyzing what has already been written.

 

Quote

No, they are supposed to fight the Others. If you argue that they are not a force for evil, that's your prerogative... but they may be.

Yes, the thing is Martin spent most of his career writing about pacifism and anti-war, not how fighting WWII was right, so, while he may agree that fighting an all-evil force hellbent on destroying humanity is the correct thing to do (and I'm hoping we all do, with the exception of @The_Lone_Wolf). I think he is less likely to put that as the climax of his magnum opus, and rather keep the themes he's been developing throughout his carreer.