War Won't Save The World

[CamiloRP]

4 hours ago, SeanBeanedMeUp said:

Of all seriousness though I don't think it would be out of his character to have a pessimistic worldview express in his books considering how much of a common theme it is.

I read a lot of his books, and to me at least, he always comes up as idealistic, optimistic, yeah, in the short term Tywin wins and Ned dies, but in the long term Ned has a long list of people fighting for him and his family, even after death, while all that's left of Tywin is a bad-smelling corpse and three completely disgraced children, his true legacy.

And I think that's a theme in his work, something like 'the future will be ours'. Anyhow, I can get why people gould get pessimistic from his work, but I don't think at the level of thinking the ending of humanity is a desirable outcome.

[SeanBeanedMeUp]

2 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

I read a lot of his books, and to me at least, he always comes up as idealistic, optimistic, yeah, in the short term Tywin wins and Ned dies, but in the long term Ned has a long list of people fighting for him and his family, even after death, while all that's left of Tywin is a bad-smelling corpse and three completely disgraced children, his true legacy.

And I think that's a theme in his work, something like 'the future will be ours'. Anyhow, I can get why people gould get pessimistic from his work, but I don't think at the level of thinking the ending of humanity is a desirable outcome.

That is true but then again things may not go well for the Starks and their allies. After all GRRM doesn't want this to be a conventional fantasy story.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Starks and Lannisters go down together. It'd be an epic and tragic sight to see.

Also I don't see humanity ending either. I just see it taking such a huge blow that will take thousands of years to recover from.

[Nathan Stark]

16 hours ago, SeanBeanedMeUp said:

But what if the Starks lose? And then maybe some Other convinces the North to rally behind them? That would be a twist.

It would be a pretty lame twist in my opinion. Why would Northerners rally to an Other when they hate and fear the Others so much it's literally a curse? ("The Others take you!") And while George does a lot of decunstructionist writing, I don't see him killing off some of the main protagonists of the series. He's not a nihalist.

16 hours ago, SeanBeanedMeUp said:

Why wouldn't George be pessimistic, especially after seeing Dumb and Dumber ruin the show?

I know people are gonna dump on me for saying this, but I don't think the book endings are going to be hugely different from the show ending. Sure, George will put his own spin on things, and there are book specific plotlines to be resolved, but I really think folks are going to be suprised at how similar Winds will be to the show.

16 hours ago, SeanBeanedMeUp said:

Of all seriousness though I don't think it would be out of his character to have a pessimistic worldview express in his books considering how much of a common theme it is.

Just because it is a common theme in his books doesn't mean George is a pessimist himself. He describes himself as a "hopeless romantic," and compares himself to Sam more than any other character.

[SeanF]

11 minutes ago, Nathan Stark said:

It would be a pretty lame twist in my opinion. Why would Northerners rally to an Other when they hate and fear the Others so much it's literally a curse? ("The Others take you!") And while George does a lot of decunstructionist writing, I don't see him killing off some of the main protagonists of the series. He's not a nihalist.

I know people are gonna dump on me for saying this, but I don't think the book endings are going to be hugely different from the show ending. Sure, George will put his own spin on things, and there are book specific plotlines to be resolved, but I really think folks are going to be suprised at how similar Winds will be to the show.

Just because it is a common theme in his books doesn't mean George is a pessimist himself. He describes himself as a "hopeless romantic," and compares himself to Sam more than any other character.

The show ending was nihilistic, albeit, a different form of nihilism to the Others winning.

[Nathan Stark]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

The show ending was nihilistic, albeit, a different form of nihilism to the Others winning.

That's why George putting his own spin on the ending is important. Beyond that, it's possible for people to have different interpretations of the same ending, or even the whole story. D and D were always nihalistic, even in season One, but George never was.

[TheLastWolf]

3 hours ago, Nathan Stark said:

He's not a nihalist.

He is. Hunch. Gut. Intuition. Know a fellow existentialist when I read him. Coen bros. Mccarthy. Kubrick. Bergman. PT Anderson 

[Nathan Stark]

1 hour ago, The_Lone_Wolf said:

He is. Hunch. Gut. Intuition. Know a fellow existentialist when I read him. Coen bros. Mccarthy. Kubrick. Bergman. PT Anderson 

Except he isn't. He's said he's a romantic, the opposite of a nihalist. I'm inclined to take him at his word.

[CamiloRP]

1 hour ago, The_Lone_Wolf said:

He is. Hunch. Gut. Intuition. Know a fellow existentialist when I read him. Coen bros. Mccarthy. Kubrick. Bergman. PT Anderson 

Nah dude, not at all, he's a hippie, he fought for the world being a better place because he thinks it could b, nihilist don't fight, cause it doesn't matter, and he's still fighting, he has charities and scholarships and such, someone that thinks it's all hopeless wouldn't do this. Override ends with the hope of the workers unionizing and beating the shameless criminal capitalist, The Armageddon Rag ends with the hope of the small time writer beating the shameless fascist capitalist (and also pacifism beating violence). Of course that's not all in In The House Of The Worm humanity is doomed because they don't listen to the pacifist and think him a clown, but a few days prior said pacifist was a mere knight, so change is still possible. And, again, in ASOIAF, idealist Ned looses in the short term and Tywin wins, but in the long term, people are still fighting for Ned's family long after they are gone, explicitely because of their ideals, while Tywin gets a smelly corpse and three disgraced children.

[TheLastWolf]

14 hours ago, Nathan Stark said:

Except he isn't. He's said he's a romantic, the opposite of a nihalist. I'm inclined to take him at his word.

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 

14 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

Nah dude, not at all, he's a hippie, he fought for the world being a better place because he thinks it could b, nihilist don't fight, cause it doesn't matter, and he's still fighting, he has charities and scholarships and such, someone that thinks it's all hopeless wouldn't do this. Override ends with the hope of the workers unionizing and beating the shameless criminal capitalist, The Armageddon Rag ends with the hope of the small time writer beating the shameless fascist capitalist (and also pacifism beating violence). Of course that's not all in In The House Of The Worm humanity is doomed because they don't listen to the pacifist and think him a clown, but a few days prior said pacifist was a mere knight, so change is still possible. And, again, in ASOIAF, idealist Ned looses in the short term and Tywin wins, but in the long term, people are still fighting for Ned's family long after they are gone, explicitely because of their ideals, while Tywin gets a smelly corpse and three disgraced children.

Hippie approximately = Nihilistic shades of grey 

[Julia H.]

This is a very interesting topic and discussion. I can totally sympathize with the opinion that war should not be regarded as a solution to the problems of human kind. Of course, we have seen such things in fantasy novels before. War as a "fantasy motif" is rather suitable to create a whole network of extremely difficult and dramatic situations testing the character (endurance, loyalty, resourcefulness etc.) of each participant and demanding painful sacrifices, and perhaps that is the main reason why authors use it (as a literary device), and not that they want to send a "pro-war" message to readers. We'll have to see how (and if) GRRM will go there and how he will handle the question.

It is another question what we regard as a "solution". Ensuring the immediate survival of humans at the cost of very significant casualties? Bringing peace and prosperity to Westeros? Giving humans a chance to start again? Making a dream of spring at least possible? Saving humanity from both ice and fire? Whatever the solution is, we can at best expect a "bittersweet" ending, and the way there is not going to be rosy, war or not war.

Regarding the debate on war versus negotiations with the Others... I know the series has not been finished yet, so there is room for all sorts of new things, however, up to this point, the Others do not seem to be depicted as just another humanoid culture in Westeros. We have the COTF, who, I think, are presented as a humanoid (if not exactly human) culture of magical beings, there are also the giants, who seem to be only marginally different from humans. Compared to them, the Others are fundamentally different, and not only because of what we don't know about them.

While the Others also have an antropomorphic appearance, in their case there is a very important warning sign that they are something entirely different than just another mysterious culture. There is generally something very wrong with the seasons in Westeros, and we know that the coming of the Others coincides with extreme winter conditions - very low temperatures, a "long night" (= no Sun), circumstances that are especially unfavourable for life, meaning all sorts of life forms, not only human life. I think the latter is a very important circumstance - we are not talking simply about Others versus humans, it is all life in Westeros that is at stake. This is emphasized by the detail that the Others hate life, which can be something literal (if they are capable of hatred in the human sense) or figurative. It strongly suggests an "either them or us" situation: it is either the Others who thrive or all life forms that need the light and warmth of the sun. 

In this regard, there are two possibilities: 

One is that the Others get strong / active / aggressive when a Long Night is approaching. In this case, they seem to be a magical personification of a destructive force of nature, and while humans may well be forced to fight them, the real solution may entail tackling the underlying problem (whatever causes the Long Night or extreme winter weather), which, by the way, could very well be something that humans (wittingly or unwittingly) have done.

The other possibility is that the Others bring the Long Night / extreme weather conditions (intentionally or not). In this case, they are a strong magical force which clearly works against all life as we know it, and it is very doubtful that they could be persuaded not to do that, especially since they may not even be able to help it. 

The fact that they appear with swords and we see them kill individual people is just the tip of the iceberg, in my opinion, but it suggests that people will need to physically fight them (which may not be enough to overcome them though). After all, why would the author give them swords and give us stories about obsidian weapons if not to prepare the ground for actual fight?

The fact that they use the bodies of dead humans as killing machines against living humans symbolically emphasizes their opposition to life. 

The baby sacrifice done by Craster is very significant, and it means that peace with the Others deprives humanity of the future (symbolized and embodied by children), and I think it also strongly indicates that the possibility of peaceful coexistence with them is rather unlikely.

 

 

 

[SeanBeanedMeUp]

On 6/26/2021 at 3:52 AM, Nathan Stark said:

It would be a pretty lame twist in my opinion. Why would Northerners rally to an Other when they hate and fear the Others so much it's literally a curse? ("The Others take you!") And while George does a lot of decunstructionist writing, I don't see him killing off some of the main protagonists of the series. He's not a nihalist.

I know people are gonna dump on me for saying this, but I don't think the book endings are going to be hugely different from the show ending. Sure, George will put his own spin on things, and there are book specific plotlines to be resolved, but I really think folks are going to be suprised at how similar Winds will be to the show.

Just because it is a common theme in his books doesn't mean George is a pessimist himself. He describes himself as a "hopeless romantic," and compares himself to Sam more than any other character.

Yeah you're right about the first paragraph. Though then again stranger things have happened.

I think the book ending will be much more different. GRRM being a gardener means that he might make changes.

Sure, but he does express a lot of pessimism nonetheless.

[CamiloRP]

14 hours ago, The_Lone_Wolf said:

 Hippie approximately = Nihilistic shades of grey 

No! Hippies fought for a better world because they thought it possible, nihilists don't care either way.

[CamiloRP]

12 hours ago, Julia H. said:

This is a very interesting topic and discussion.

Thanks!

 

Quote

I can totally sympathize with the opinion that war should not be regarded as a solution to the problems of human kind. Of course, we have seen such things in fantasy novels before. War as a "fantasy motif" is rather suitable to create a whole network of extremely difficult and dramatic situations testing the character (endurance, loyalty, resourcefulness etc.) of each participant and demanding painful sacrifices, and perhaps that is the main reason why authors use it (as a literary device), and not that they want to send a "pro-war" message to readers. We'll have to see how (and if) GRRM will go there and how he will handle the question.

It is another question what we regard as a "solution". Ensuring the immediate survival of humans at the cost of very significant casualties? Bringing peace and prosperity to Westeros? Giving humans a chance to start again? Making a dream of spring at least possible? Saving humanity from both ice and fire? Whatever the solution is, we can at best expect a "bittersweet" ending, and the way there is not going to be rosy, war or not war.

Regarding the debate on war versus negotiations with the Others... I know the series has not been finished yet, so there is room for all sorts of new things, however, up to this point, the Others do not seem to be depicted as just another humanoid culture in Westeros. We have the COTF, who, I think, are presented as a humanoid (if not exactly human) culture of magical beings, there are also the giants, who seem to be only marginally different from humans. Compared to them, the Others are fundamentally different, and not only because of what we don't know about them.

While the Others also have an antropomorphic appearance, in their case there is a very important warning sign that they are something entirely different than just another mysterious culture. There is generally something very wrong with the seasons in Westeros, and we know that the coming of the Others coincides with extreme winter conditions - very low temperatures, a "long night" (= no Sun), circumstances that are especially unfavourable for life, meaning all sorts of life forms, not only human life. I think the latter is a very important circumstance - we are not talking simply about Others versus humans, it is all life in Westeros that is at stake. This is emphasized by the detail that the Others hate life, which can be something literal (if they are capable of hatred in the human sense) or figurative. It strongly suggests an "either them or us" situation: it is either the Others who thrive or all life forms that need the light and warmth of the sun. 

In this regard, there are two possibilities: 

One is that the Others get strong / active / aggressive when a Long Night is approaching. In this case, they seem to be a magical personification of a destructive force of nature, and while humans may well be forced to fight them, the real solution may entail tackling the underlying problem (whatever causes the Long Night or extreme winter weather), which, by the way, could very well be something that humans (wittingly or unwittingly) have done.

The other possibility is that the Others bring the Long Night / extreme weather conditions (intentionally or not). In this case, they are a strong magical force which clearly works against all life as we know it, and it is very doubtful that they could be persuaded not to do that, especially since they may not even be able to help it. 

All of this is very interesting, and I have consider a lot of this before, I don't necessarily disagree with anything here and this is pointless response, but I feel if I didn't say anything you'd feel ignored.

 

Quote

The fact that they appear with swords and we see them kill individual people is just the tip of the iceberg, in my opinion, but it suggests that people will need to physically fight them (which may not be enough to overcome them though). After all, why would the author give them swords and give us stories about obsidian weapons if not to prepare the ground for actual fight?

This is the most interesting bit IMHO, I think George gave them swords for the same reason I think he presented us with all the legends about them, to make us think that fighting them is the solution and then subverting the expectations, if you hear a guy is mad at you, you may try to talk it out rather than fight him, if you see a guy running towards you with a sword, and you have a sword, you'll try to fight him. I think George is setting everything up so both characters and readers think fighting is the only option, to then surprise us by having it not be so.

[TheLastWolf]

10 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

No! Hippies fought for a better world because they thought it possible, nihilists don't care either way.

We also don't care about not caring, therfore we do care about stuff since it's no matter. Just because we know we're doomed doesn't mean that we can't have a good time 

[Julia H.]

On 6/28/2021 at 6:32 AM, CamiloRP said:

All of this is very interesting, and I have consider a lot of this before, I don't necessarily disagree with anything here and this is pointless response, but I feel if I didn't say anything you'd feel ignored.

Thanks for replying! :-)

On 6/28/2021 at 6:32 AM, CamiloRP said:

 

This is the most interesting bit IMHO, I think George gave them swords for the same reason I think he presented us with all the legends about them, to make us think that fighting them is the solution and then subverting the expectations, if you hear a guy is mad at you, you may try to talk it out rather than fight him, if you see a guy running towards you with a sword, and you have a sword, you'll try to fight him. I think George is setting everything up so both characters and readers think fighting is the only option, to then surprise us by having it not be so.

Even if there is a fight, literal sword fight is not necessarily the only option. It is interesting though that GRRM didn't simply give the Others swords but made the question of swords in relation to the Others seem quite significant as early as in the Prologue to AGOT. 

Quote

The Other slid forward on silent feet. In its hand was a longsword like none that Will had ever seen. No human metal had gone into the forging of that blade. It was alive with moonlight, translucent, a shard of crystal so thin that it seemed almost to vanish when seen edge-on. There was a faint blue shimmer to the thing, a ghost-light that played around its edges, and somehow Will knew it was sharper than any razor.

The Other's sword is described in detail, and, strangely, both as a thing of beauty and as a terrible weapon. Then we see the Other display a decided interest in Ser Waymar's sword, the sword which is later shattered by the Other's blade:

Quote

The Other halted. Will saw its eyes; blue, deeper and bluer than any human eyes, a blue that burned like ice. They fixed on the longsword trembling on high, watched the moonlight running cold along the metal. For a heartbeat he dared to hope.

There is also this:

Quote

Ser Waymar met him bravely. "Dance with me then." He lifted his sword high over his head, defiant. 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.

Vain and inexperienced Ser Waymar suddenly "grows up" and becomes a man of the Night's Watch (which I regard as a positive character description throughout the books) when he bravely meets and fights an Other, even though he has no chance; whereas, while he was merely hunting wildlings, he was no more than a green boy unfit for the leadership position given to him. He is recognized as a true watchman at this very moment. In retrospect, this seems to be a telling detail regarding the original, true responsibility of the Night's Watch.   

If we interpret this scene as some kind of foreshadowing, then my conclusion is that swords will be important, but swords (ordinary swords at least) won't solve the problem for humans. Ser Waymar's story contains elements of Jon's journey later on: Jon also sets out as a ranger to fight wildlings and, as a result, gradually comes to understand the full significance of the threat the Others mean, and he grows into "a man of the Night's Watch" in the process. "Ser  Waymar's" wildlings are all dead though when he finds them (and his own fellow watchmen essentially abandon him, so Ser Waymar faces the Others completely alone), while Jon finds and befriends living wildlings, eventually helping the Free Folk survive; and that may turn out to be an essential difference between their stories. 

 

[CamiloRP]

23 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Vain and inexperienced Ser Waymar suddenly "grows up" and becomes a man of the Night's Watch (which I regard as a positive character description throughout the books) when he bravely meets and fights an Other, even though he has no chance; whereas, while he was merely hunting wildlings, he was no more than a green boy unfit for the leadership position given to him. He is recognized as a true watchman at this very moment. In retrospect, this seems to be a telling detail regarding the original, true responsibility of the Night's Watch.   

This is what caught my eye the most, I don't know if becoming a 'man of the NW' is a good thing, in other GRRM works, the 'becoming a man' bit is spouted by the villain, like Slum's dad in Armageddon Rag, and even in ASOIAF, the character who I associate the most with that phrase is one of the biggest assholes in the story: Randyll Tarly.

[Mourning Star]

On 6/27/2021 at 11:48 AM, Julia H. said:

It is another question what we regard as a "solution". Ensuring the immediate survival of humans at the cost of very significant casualties? Bringing peace and prosperity to Westeros? Giving humans a chance to start again? Making a dream of spring at least possible? Saving humanity from both ice and fire? Whatever the solution is, we can at best expect a "bittersweet" ending, and the way there is not going to be rosy, war or not war.

I think the obvious answer to your question, what is a "solution", is something you even mention yourself... correcting the imbalance of the seasons.

Also, just because I don't think war will be the answer doesn't mean that I don't think there will be a war.

On 6/27/2021 at 11:48 AM, Julia H. said:

This is emphasized by the detail that the Others hate life, which can be something literal (if they are capable of hatred in the human sense) or figurative. It strongly suggests an "either them or us" situation: it is either the Others who thrive or all life forms that need the light and warmth of the sun. 

In this regard, there are two possibilities: 

One is that the Others get strong / active / aggressive when a Long Night is approaching. In this case, they seem to be a magical personification of a destructive force of nature, and while humans may well be forced to fight them, the real solution may entail tackling the underlying problem (whatever causes the Long Night or extreme winter weather), which, by the way, could very well be something that humans (wittingly or unwittingly) have done.

The other possibility is that the Others bring the Long Night / extreme weather conditions (intentionally or not). In this case, they are a strong magical force which clearly works against all life as we know it, and it is very doubtful that they could be persuaded not to do that, especially since they may not even be able to help it. 

Well... maybe...

They were cold things, dead things, that hated iron and fire and the touch of the sun, and every creature with hot blood in its veins.

But, I'm not sure this means "them or us" at all.

There are plenty of things in the world dangerous to people that we don't need to completely destroy to survive.

The obvious other side of this coin is dragons. Might they all be safer without them? Certainly, but it's also easy to see how the death of dragons was a tragedy.

And so, I would suggest a third possibility.

The Others, like the Dragons, are being used as a tool by someone who does not have complete control over them.

They are more akin to a dangerous animal or force of nature than bringers of the apocalypse, and they might seek to harm men, but that doesn't mean we have to eradicate them in order to survive.

In fact, one might make the case that the root of the problem isn't nature, but people.

Leaf certainly does with her analogy of the wood, where men are the deer overrunning the wood.

Quote

And they did sing. They sang in True Tongue, so Bran could not understand the words, but their voices were as pure as winter air. "Where are the rest of you?" Bran asked Leaf, once.
"Gone down into the earth," she answered. "Into the stones, into the trees. Before the First Men came all this land that you call Westeros was home to us, yet even in those days we were few. The gods gave us long lives but not great numbers, lest we overrun the world as deer will overrun a wood where there are no wolves to hunt them. That was in the dawn of days, when our sun was rising. Now it sinks, and this is our long dwindling. The giants are almost gone as well, they who were our bane and our brothers. The great lions of the western hills have been slain, the unicorns are all but gone, the mammoths down to a few hundred. The direwolves will outlast us all, but their time will come as well. In the world that men have made, there is no room for them, or us."
She seemed sad when she said it, and that made Bran sad as well. It was only later that he thought, Men would not be sad. Men would be wroth. Men would hate and swear a bloody vengeance. The singers sing sad songs, where men would fight and kill.

A Dance with Dragons - Bran III

Even more simplistically, I find it extremely difficult to believe that "The Song of Ice and Fire" is about defeating an element...

[Julia H.]

22 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

This is what caught my eye the most, I don't know if becoming a 'man of the NW' is a good thing, in other GRRM works, the 'becoming a man' bit is spouted by the villain, like Slum's dad in Armageddon Rag, and even in ASOIAF, the character who I associate the most with that phrase is one of the biggest assholes in the story: Randyll Tarly.

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. 

Quote

"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."

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."

Quote

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

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."

Quote

"He is half a boy still."

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

 

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."

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. 

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

And I especially love the contrast with this other phrase:

Quote

 

Florent's smile was so false that it looked painful. "Where is she, Lord Snow? Have you moved her to one of your other castles? Greyguard or the Shadow Tower? Whore's Burrow, with t'other wenches?" He leaned close. "Some say you have her tucked away for your own pleasure. It makes no matter to me, so long as she is not with child. I'll get my own sons on her. If you've broken her to saddle, well … we are both men of the world, are we not?"

Jon had heard enough. "Ser Axell, if you are truly the Queen's Hand, I pity Her Grace."

 

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. 

 

[Julia H.]

21 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Well... maybe...

They were cold things, dead things, that hated iron and fire and the touch of the sun, and every creature with hot blood in its veins.

But, I'm not sure this means "them or us" at all.

There are plenty of things in the world dangerous to people that we don't need to completely destroy to survive.

True, and we'll see if the Others need to be "completely destroyed" or not. But the Long Night has to be prevented or put an end to, otherwise neither humans nor other living beings will survive. Therefore a lot depends on how closely the Others and the Long Night are dependent on each other. 

21 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

The obvious other side of this coin is dragons. Might they all be safer without them? Certainly, but it's also easy to see how the death of dragons was a tragedy.

And so, I would suggest a third possibility.

The Others, like the Dragons, are being used as a tool by someone who does not have complete control over them.

That could be. 

Just curious: Dragons have been manipulated by humans (the Valyrians). Do you think the Others may also have been manipulated by a group of humans, like the "icy" counterpart of Valyrians? For me, that would complete the analogy - but I wonder if this world of ice and fire could be quite that symmetrical.

21 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

They are more akin to a dangerous animal or force of nature than bringers of the apocalypse, and they might seek to harm men, but that doesn't mean we have to eradicate them in order to survive.

In fact, one might make the case that the root of the problem isn't nature, but people.

Leaf certainly does with her analogy of the wood, where men are the deer overrunning the wood.

I also think it is quite likely that the coming of the Others may be somehow the result of something humans have done - or someone humans have failed to do. It would be perhaps more interesting than just having them attack completely out of the blue. What seems most likely to me in this respect is that there is something crucial that humans have forgotten (which is not quite the same as men simply "overrunning the world").

Now, whether the Others act on their own or are manipulated by some further player is a good question. If they do not act on their own, then the next question is what sort of force exists in the background seeking to eradicate all life from Westeros - or at least doing an experiment that has gone wrong. If the answer is just another evil group (or a single person) behind it all, instead of the Others, well, I'm not sure I see the purpose of moving this role from the Others to another entity. If it turns out to be more interesting than just that, I will probably like it.

21 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Even more simplistically, I find it extremely difficult to believe that "The Song of Ice and Fire" is about defeating an element...

How could humans defeat an element? It is more about balancing the elements so life need not completely end in either ice or fire.  

[Mourning Star]

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

True, and we'll see if the Others need to be "completely destroyed" or not. But the Long Night has to be prevented or put an end to, otherwise neither humans nor other living beings will survive. Therefore a lot depends on how closely the Others and the Long Night are dependent on each other. 

I would imagine that the weird seasons and the Long Night are linked, symptoms of some imbalance.

Quote

Just curious: Dragons have been manipulated by humans (the Valyrians). Do you think the Others may also have been manipulated by a group of humans, like the "icy" counterpart of Valyrians? For me, that would complete the analogy - but I wonder if this world of ice and fire could be quite that symmetrical.

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.

Quote

I also think it is quite likely that the coming of the Others may be somehow the result of something humans have done - or someone humans have failed to do. It would be perhaps more interesting than just having them attack completely out of the blue. What seems most likely to me in this respect is that there is something crucial that humans have forgotten (which is not quite the same as men simply "overrunning the world").

The “overrunning the world” is an explanation for the motives of the Children perhaps, and possibly a critique of human behavior. I think it’s relevant to the discussion about having to “defeat” every danger, rather than learning to live in harmony. But I agree it isn’t a completely satisfying answer and there is almost certainly more going on.

Quote

Now, whether the Others act on their own or are manipulated by some further player is a good question. If they do not act on their own, then the next question is what sort of force exists in the background seeking to eradicate all life from Westeros - or at least doing an experiment that has gone wrong. If the answer is just another evil group (or a single person) behind it all, instead of the Others, well, I'm not sure I see the purpose of moving this role from the Others to another entity. If it turns out to be more interesting than just that, I will probably like it.

I think it is an important distinction for the one behind the Others to have human motivations. Even if it isn’t full control, it’s far more interesting to think about human choices and motivations than some one dimensional evil.

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. 

Quote

How could humans defeat an element? It is more about balancing the elements so life need not completely end in either ice or fire.  

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.