War Won't Save The World

[CamiloRP]

3 hours ago, Julia H. said:

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.

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. 

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). 

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). 

You are right, and I think I'm not succeeding in making myself clear. The text should absolutely stand on it's own, but I'm talking about the text that hasn't been written yet (TWOW and ADOS) while I see now you are talking about the other five books. I'm saying that, while we may see now 'a man of the night's watch' as a good thing, I expect it to, in the future, slowly loose that quality, if the series was finished, then yes, authorial intent wouldn't matter, and Martin's other works would matter even less, and if that 'deterioration' of the act of being 'a man of the NW' were to never happen, then, regardless of Randyll Tarly and Slum's dad and whatever else, I would be as wrong as you can be regarding subjective analysis. 

Put another way, you are saying "the phrase 'a man of the Night's Watch' is positive" and I'm not saying 'no', I'm saying 'it may be the case now, but I think that might be subverted in the future.'

 

Quote

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. 

Again, it's not what I'm saying, the word 'man' is not the connection I see, but rather the similarities in language. I see 'becoming a man' and 'becoming a man of the Night's Watch' as inherently connected phrases, as 'becoming a knight' and more, but that may be just me. So it's not like saying 'love is bad' based on Petyr's 'love' for Cat, it's like seeing a character talk about love in a way similar to LF's and being suspicious of that character, which I would absolutely do.

[Julia H.]

6 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

Again, it's not what I'm saying, the word 'man' is not the connection I see, but rather the similarities in language. I see 'becoming a man' and 'becoming a man of the Night's Watch' as inherently connected phrases, as 'becoming a knight' and more, but that may be just me. So it's not like saying 'love is bad' based on Petyr's 'love' for Cat, it's like seeing a character talk about love in a way similar to LF's and being suspicious of that character, which I would absolutely do.

I see... Yet, the characters (using the phrase a man of the Night's Watch) I've been talking about were characters like Jon, Sam, Jeor, Aemon and Qhorin, and I don't know if I should be suspicious about them. Aemon, for example, is dead, and I can't imagine we'll find out in retrospect that he was endorsing the same principles as Randyll Tarly. Besides, I don't really see where the similarity of the language is. On the one hand, there is the repeated and well-documented phrase a man of the Night's Watch (which is definitely not becoming a man of the Night's Watch, by the way), and on the other hand, ... what? A totally different single-occurrence phrase, like turning Sam into a knight? 

Apparently, there has been no such a phrase as becoming a man in ASOIAF so far.

I think, if anything, there is a contrast between knights and men of the Night's Watch. Knights are supposed to be these brilliant, chivalrous beings who always protect the weak and fight for the right causes, but in ASOIAF they are mostly not like that, however, being a knight can still give a person power and "celebrity status", since knights are celebrated for their tourney victories and skills with the lance or sword. (Of course, Randyll is unable to recognize a "true knight" when he sees one - Brienne.) Whereas the Night's Watch is despised by most people (currently at least) as hardly more than a prison camp for all sorts of outcasts, yet, we see how, in those disadvantaged circumstances, these outcasts can become heroes through courage and sacrifice when they accept it as their true vocation - and the courage and sacrifice do not even necessarily mean that they are engaged in violent behaviour, but that they do "what needs be done" to protect the realms of men.

[Ivan Tsarevich]

9 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

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.

Well, of course you may be correct, I just retain a right to doubt and disagree. Especially if you use these interpretations to support an argument, as I think you may have done.

9 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

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.

Ah, then you know it better than me. My question was a casual one.

I myself am not actually familiar with it, but I like the idea that even though the author may have actually meant something different than what I myself may find in a given piece of text, I do not need to let that limit my enjoyment of it. That is, I can find enjoyment and wonder in a work of art without caring a bit about the message it may be supposed to deliver.

And that sort of thing may also be easier with a purposefully vague author like George, who makes his readers think. Why seek for an answer, when you do not actually need one? If you allow me to share a quote, from Jaime's lone chapter in ADwD...

As a half-moon crept up the sky, they staked their horses out in the village commons and supped on salted mutton, dried apples, and hard cheese. Jaime ate sparingly and shared a skin of wine with Peck and Hos the hostage. He tried to count the pennies nailed to the old oak, but there were too many of them and he kept losing count. What's that all about? The Blackwood boy would tell him if he asked, but that would spoil the mystery.

9 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

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.

I see. I myself have no particular opinion on how ASoIaF will be resolved, and so the views of others are welcome, especially if they're informed like yours. Something to think about.

Of course, that does not mean that I share such views.

[CamiloRP]

3 hours ago, Julia H. said:

I see... Yet, the characters (using the phrase a man of the Night's Watch) I've been talking about were characters like Jon, Sam, Jeor, Aemon and Qhorin, and I don't know if I should be suspicious about them. Aemon, for example, is dead, and I can't imagine we'll find out in retrospect that he was endorsing the same principles as Randyll Tarly. Besides, I don't really see where the similarity of the language is. On the one hand, there is the repeated and well-documented phrase a man of the Night's Watch (which is definitely not becoming a man of the Night's Watch, by the way), and on the other hand, ... what? A totally different single-occurrence phrase, like turning Sam into a knight? 

I was more broadly referring to the NW as a whole rather than the character's who use the phrase of their own, because bringing up Sam's internalized misogyny in a society as fucked up as Westeros would be like criticizing Hannibal Lecter for cooking with too little salt.

 

Quote

Apparently, there has been no such a phrase as becoming a man in ASOIAF so far.

I think, if anything, there is a contrast between knights and men of the Night's Watch. Knights are supposed to be these brilliant, chivalrous beings who always protect the weak and fight for the right causes, but in ASOIAF they are mostly not like that, however, being a knight can still give a person power and "celebrity status", since knights are celebrated for their tourney victories and skills with the lance or sword. (Of course, Randyll is unable to recognize a "true knight" when he sees one - Brienne.) Whereas the Night's Watch is despised by most people (currently at least) as hardly more than a prison camp for all sorts of outcasts, yet, we see how, in those disadvantaged circumstances, these outcasts can become heroes through courage and sacrifice when they accept it as their true vocation - and the courage and sacrifice do not even necessarily mean that they are engaged in violent behaviour, but that they do "what needs be done" to protect the realms of men.

It must be a Mandela effect in my part, aided by Martin's other work.

 

2 hours ago, TsarGrey said:

Ah, then you know it better than me. My question was a casual one.

I myself am not actually familiar with it, but I like the idea that even though the author may have actually meant something different than what I myself may find in a given piece of text, I do not need to let that limit my enjoyment of it. That is, I can find enjoyment and wonder in a work of art without caring a bit about the message it may be supposed to deliver.

And that sort of thing may also be easier with a purposefully vague author like George, who makes his readers think. Why seek for an answer, when you do not actually need one? If you allow me to share a quote, from Jaime's lone chapter in ADwD...

Oh, the death of the author is wonderful for media analysis, and most critics today adhere to it in one way or another, but the figure of the author can also be extremely useful in other less thematically aimed analysis, like say, I can be 100% sure that JK Rowling's new book will not have a sympathetic trans woman as a protagonist , and I don't need to know anything about the book to know that, I just need to know the author.

 

Quote

As a half-moon crept up the sky, they staked their horses out in the village commons and supped on salted mutton, dried apples, and hard cheese. Jaime ate sparingly and shared a skin of wine with Peck and Hos the hostage. He tried to count the pennies nailed to the old oak, but there were too many of them and he kept losing count. What's that all about? The Blackwood boy would tell him if he asked, but that would spoil the mystery.

And even then, I think we're meant to find out about the three in an upcoming Dunk and Egg story..

 

Quote

I see. I myself have no particular opinion on how ASoIaF will be resolved, and so the views of others are welcome, especially if they're informed like yours. Something to think about.

Of course, that does not mean that I share such views.

Then you must be destroyed!

[Ivan Tsarevich]

1 hour ago, CamiloRP said:

Oh, the death of the author is wonderful for media analysis, and most critics today adhere to it in one way or another, but the figure of the author can also be extremely useful in other less thematically aimed analysis, like say, I can be 100% sure that JK Rowling's new book will not have a sympathetic trans woman as a protagonist , and I don't need to know anything about the book to know that, I just need to know the author.

I see.

1 hour ago, CamiloRP said:

And even then, I think we're meant to find out about the three in an upcoming Dunk and Egg story..

Might be. Yet, as far as I'm concerned, that moment is one of the best in ASoIaF.

1 hour ago, CamiloRP said:

Then you must be destroyed!

Andal.

[TheLastWolf]

16 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

, 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

Sure of that, are you? That the Others are what you say. 

And I'm not the only one who believes Homo Sapiens are at the bottom of good species list.

Plus what I mean is that Homo Sapiens dying out means good for the rest of the lifeforms, planet and universe. Not that we all have to commit mass suicide by self genocide. 

[TheLastWolf]

6 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

Quote

Of course, that does not mean that I share such views.

Then you must be destroyed!

Who are you and what have you done with Cam? 

[CamiloRP]

5 hours ago, The_Lone_Wolf said:

Sure of that, are you? That the Others are what you say. 

nah, absolutely not sure. but I do think it's more likely than them being evil strawmen.

 

Quote

And I'm not the only one who believes Homo Sapiens are at the bottom of good species list.

Plus what I mean is that Homo Sapiens dying out means good for the rest of the lifeforms, planet and universe. Not that we all have to commit mass suicide by self genocide. 

I mean, the universe doesn't care about us, or any life, so for it, nothing's better or worse. And it depends in what you place the highest value. Also, common housecats are extremely horrible for the environment, just a random fact.

[TheLastWolf]

18 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

Also, common housecats are extremely horrible for the environment, just a random fact.

I hate cats. 

Dog person here 

18 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

And it depends in what you place the highest value

Life. That's what. And though we Homo Sapiens fall under the category, we are more trouble than we are worth. For millions of other lifeforms as repeated gazillionth time 

[CamiloRP]

4 hours ago, The_Lone_Wolf said:

Life. That's what. And though we Homo Sapiens fall under the category, we are more trouble than we are worth. For millions of other lifeforms as repeated gazillionth time 

BU that's what you place the value on, others may place it in culture, arts or science, and what life? because a single human contains a lot of lifeforms within them, lifeforms that would die with their host.

[TheLastWolf]

40 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

BU that's what you place the value on, others may place it in culture, arts or science, and what life? because a single human contains a lot of lifeforms within them, lifeforms that would die with their host.

Art. Would they take life for their art or culture? Can Martin Scorcese kill someone to depict violence in his cinema? For science? And why do scientists have moral codes? Why can't a doctor cut up a few dozen humans, it's not like we're lacking in population? 

Life is beautiful. Meaningless. Not 'yet', but 'exactly why it's aesthetic' 

[CamiloRP]

On 6/27/2021 at 4:30 AM, The_Lone_Wolf said:

Whoa whoa... Hold on. People self proclaim what they'd like to be, or what they'd like others to think they are. George ain't no exception and neither am I. His works are the best way into his mind and I repeat I know a fellow nihilist (not in all senses) when I read one. His subconscious, ego, id whatever is heavily doused in grey 

Hippie approximately = Nihilistic shades of grey 

I just read this interview, and imidiately thought of this:

 

Quote

Early on, one critic described the TV series as bleak and embodying a nihilistic worldview, another bemoaned its “lack of moral signposts.” Have you ever worried that there’s some validity to that criticism?
No. That particular criticism is completely invalid. Actually, I think it’s moronic. My worldview is anything but nihilistic.

 

(here)

 

[Egged]

There is a possibility that ultimately the real threat is the "deep ones" and that a union of ice and fire would be needed to defeat/resist them. Kind of doubt it though, especially considering Moqorro's line about the Drowned God being a thrall of the Great Other.

[Jaenara Belarys]

On 7/4/2021 at 8:02 PM, CamiloRP said:

Then you must be destroyed!

Indeed. Even though ASOIAF isn't known for Disney endings I want a Disney ending with Jon and my queen Dany ruling Westeros with their kid. 

 

On 7/6/2021 at 2:25 AM, TheLastWolf said:

I hate cats. 

Dog person here 

You're both evil. Dogs and cats are equally good. 

 

Quick question: anyone think the WWs will use ice dragons?

[TheLastWolf]

1 hour ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

You're both evil. Dogs and cats are equally good. 

 

Lol. I've changed since then. Nihilism made me love cats also

EDIT

This is the stock 'one-last-post'