War Won't Save The World

[Mourning Star]

On 3/12/2021 at 9:29 PM, chrisdaw said:

Their personification is just evil, that they're going to be made sympathetic to teach us some antiwar ideal is not supported by anything.  It'd be structureless, thematically contradictory. Their acceptance of sacrifices is to create the dilemma for humans, sacrifice your children or face extinction. The answer is supposed to be do not accept the sacrifice of your children under any circumstances, reject it through force, fight, wage war.

The Others will be a physical manifestation of a perceived human flaw, even if it proves to not be humans who created them. The solution to the problem will be in uniting the realm of humans to defeat the Others in battle.

Is this just headcannon or do you actually think the text supports this?

The answer isn't war, and frankly it's hard for me to believe we are reading the same story.

I completely disagree with your take here, as it seems to be wildly in contradiction with the themes of the story.

To take the below quote as an example:

Quote

"The way the world is made. The truth is all around you, plain to behold. The night is dark and full of terrors, the day bright and beautiful and full of hope. One is black, the other white. There is ice and there is fire. Hate and love. Bitter and sweet. Male and female. Pain and pleasure. Winter and summer. Evil and good." She took a step toward him. "Death and life. Everywhere, opposites. Everywhere, the war."
"The war?" asked Davos.
"The war," she affirmed. "There are two, Onion Knight. Not seven, not one, not a hundred or a thousand. Two! Do you think I crossed half the world to put yet another vain king on yet another empty throne? The war has been waged since time began, and before it is done, all men must choose where they will stand. On one side is R'hllor, the Lord of Light, the Heart of Fire, the God of Flame and Shadow. Against him stands the Great Other whose name may not be spoken, the Lord of Darkness, the Soul of Ice, the God of Night and Terror. Ours is not a choice between Baratheon and Lannister, between Greyjoy and Stark. It is death we choose, or life. Darkness, or light." She clasped the bars of his cell with her slender white hands. The great ruby at her throat seemed to pulse with its own radiance. "So tell me, Ser Davos Seaworth, and tell me truly—does your heart burn with the shining light of R'hllor? Or is it black and cold and full of worms?" She reached through the bars and laid three fingers upon his breast, as if to feel the truth of him through flesh and wool and leather.
Melisandre sighed. "Ahhhh, Davos. The good knight is honest to the last, even in his day of darkness. It is well you did not lie to me. I would have known. The Other's servants oft hide black hearts in gaudy light, so R'hllor gives his priests the power to see through falsehoods." She stepped lightly away from the cell. "Why did you mean to kill me?"
"My heart," Davos said slowly, "is full of doubts."

A Storm of Swords - Davos III

Melisandre is clearly wrong.

The world isn't black and white. 

Ice and fire are not the same as good and evil any more than bitter and sweet are, or seasons for gods' sake!

I mean, do you really think one gender is evil? 

The answer for those who seek harmony, and life, isn't war, it's love:

Quote

"If ice can burn," said Jojen in his solemn voice, "then love and hate can mate. Mountain or marsh, it makes no matter. The land is one."

A Storm of Swords - Bran II

 

[Nathan Stark]

4 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Is this just headcannon or do you actually think the text supports this?

The answer isn't war, and frankly it's hard for me to believe we are reading the same story.

I completely disagree with your take here, as it seems to be wildly in contradiction with the themes of the story.

To take the below quote as an example:

Melisandre is clearly wrong.

The world isn't black and white. 

Ice and fire are not the same as good and evil any more than bitter and sweet are, or seasons for gods' sake!

I mean, do you really think one gender is evil? 

The answer for those who seek harmony, and life, isn't war, it's love:

 

I think folks read what they want into the text of ASOIAF. It isn't made explicit either way. George shows us the costs of the War of the Five Kings, the human suffering and the psychological toll the war exacts on people, the radicalization of the smallfolk in response, and asks us, "was the war worth all of that?"

At the same time, on the other side of his world, George shows us a very different set of circumstances. A ruling elite with a monopoly on depraved violence abuses that power on millions of slaves. Along comes Dany, who herself was sold as property, to violently remove the slave masters from power at the head of a massive slave rebellion. And when she conquers Meereen, she decides to give peace a chance, negotiate with the former masters. And sees the freedoms and safety of her freedmen slowly dwindle away.

It's easy enough for us moderns to say that peace is always preferable to war. But are things really so simple? Is it worth making peace with the Ghiscari slave masters? I don't think so. We did that here in the States after the Civil War, and 150 years of Jim Crow was the result. Sometimes, as Dany learns in Slavers Bay, the costs of peace are worse than prolonging war. But a war like the WOT5K, fought over issues of political b.s. among out of touch elites, is not a war worth fighting. There's nuance here. Although we would all love to learn to put war aside and live in peace and harmony, sometimes that just isn't an option.

Given what we now know for sure about the Others, what is the evidence that peace is even a possibilty with them? It isn't a political issue here. It isn't a matter of humans encroaching on the Others territory, since the Wildlings are trying to leave the area and people south of the Wall aren't trying to get north. The Others don't seem to care about ecological issues, given that they apparently kill and reanimate dead animals like that bear at the Fist. And the apparent cost of not fighting them is to give them your infant sons as sacrifices, which is the worst form of extortion. They've attacked the Night's Watch at least twice, both times unprovoked. They bring back dead people they have killed to make them unwilling and maybe unwitting members of their army. And people think that there's a chance at peace here? That the Others are just misunderstood, that if everybody just has a little sit down and a nice chat they can just work it all out and be peaceful friendly neighbors? I really don't see any evidence that bares this out as a possibility.

War always has a drastic cost, and should be avoided and used as a last resort. But peace also requires work and goodwill, which isn't always possible and is sometimes not even worth the effort when dealing with people like the Ghiscari slavers. The Others seem to be more in the Ghiscari slavers side of this equation.

To wrap this up, I think the larger point of this series is balance. The Others represent an endless winter, while the dragons symbolize an eternal summer. Both of those things are unsurvivable for humanity and should be avoided. This isn't to say that the Others should be wiped out, anymore than dragons should be. But both must be kept at bay. Right now, the Others are looming as an all encompassing threat to humanity, and if the Wall falls as it surely will, then desperate war is an inevitability,  and peace is probably not on the table.

[Jaenara Belarys]

I would disagree since they've basically also been hammering down the point that the White Walkers Are Bad, Bad Creatures. Old Nan's stories, which have a history of being correct according to Wiki of Ice and Fire, basically make it obvious that white walkers, others, whatever you wanna call them are trying to kill all humans.

[Jaenara Belarys]

Also, the WOTFK was kind of necessary because Joffrey has no rightful claim to the Iron Throne, and he's a piece of **** as well. But the Battle for the Dawn would be super necessary in order to save humanity.

[Mourning Star]

59 minutes ago, Nathan Stark said:

I think folks read what they want into the text of ASOIAF. It isn't made explicit either way. George shows us the costs of the War of the Five Kings, the human suffering and the psychological toll the war exacts on people, the radicalization of the smallfolk in response, and asks us, "was the war worth all of that?"

At the same time, on the other side of his world, George shows us a very different set of circumstances. A ruling elite with a monopoly on depraved violence abuses that power on millions of slaves. Along comes Dany, who herself was sold as property, to violently remove the slave masters from power at the head of a massive slave rebellion. And when she conquers Meereen, she decides to give peace a chance, negotiate with the former masters. And sees the freedoms and safety of her freedmen slowly dwindle away.

It's easy enough for us moderns to say that peace is always preferable to war. But are things really so simple? Is it worth making peace with the Ghiscari slave masters? I don't think so. We did that here in the States after the Civil War, and 150 years of Jim Crow was the result. Sometimes, as Dany learns in Slavers Bay, the costs of peace are worse than prolonging war. But a war like the WOT5K, fought over issues of political b.s. among out of touch elites, is not a war worth fighting. There's nuance here. Although we would all love to learn to put war aside and live in peace and harmony, sometimes that just isn't an option.

Given what we now know for sure about the Others, what is the evidence that peace is even a possibilty with them? It isn't a political issue here. It isn't a matter of humans encroaching on the Others territory, since the Wildlings are trying to leave the area and people south of the Wall aren't trying to get north. The Others don't seem to care about ecological issues, given that they apparently kill and reanimate dead animals like that bear at the Fist. And the apparent cost of not fighting them is to give them your infant sons as sacrifices, which is the worst form of extortion. They've attacked the Night's Watch at least twice, both times unprovoked. They bring back dead people they have killed to make them unwilling and maybe unwitting members of their army. And people think that there's a chance at peace here? That the Others are just misunderstood, that if everybody just has a little sit down and a nice chat they can just work it all out and be peaceful friendly neighbors? I really don't see any evidence that bares this out as a possibility.

War always has a drastic cost, and should be avoided and used as a last resort. But peace also requires work and goodwill, which isn't always possible and is sometimes not even worth the effort when dealing with people like the Ghiscari slavers. The Others seem to be more in the Ghiscari slavers side of this equation.

To wrap this up, I think the larger point of this series is balance. The Others represent an endless winter, while the dragons symbolize an eternal summer. Both of those things are unsurvivable for humanity and should be avoided. This isn't to say that the Others should be wiped out, anymore than dragons should be. But both must be kept at bay. Right now, the Others are looming as an all encompassing threat to humanity, and if the Wall falls as it surely will, then desperate war is an inevitability,  and peace is probably not on the table.

I think this also kind of misses the point though... War can be bad, but that doesn't mean it is never justified.

Slavery is a good example of something systemic that could be worse than war, and worthy of fighting to oppose.

This isn't an ancient vs modern issue, it is a human issue. There is still plenty of war and slavery alive today in the world.

The solution to the problem of war however, isn't more war. Is war justified when you are forced to defend yourself? Sure, but it isn't the solution.

The Others didn't bother humanity for thousands of years, and I would argue that the ancient tales of Symeon Star Eyes and Merwyn are examples of peaceful interactions with the Others. I don't think any of the wars have been unprovoked, and I think a man was behind both the Long Night and the current return of the Others.

I genuinely think you have missed the entire point of the series if you think peace isn't an option to work towards. I really don't think you are supposed to come away aspiring to be Tywin Lannister, all practicality and no morality, and more than you are supposed to see the world in black and white like Melisandre.

[Jaenara Belarys]

Excuse me? Please explain PEACEFUL interactions involving Symeon Star Eyes and the white walkers. The white walkers are trying to exterminate humanity, and when somebody attacks you and tries to kill all your people, you fight back. 

[Jaenara Belarys]

I don't see why you think that the humans should try to talk to the Others, because it seems pretty obvious they'd just kill the people you sent to talk.

[Daeron the Daring]

1 hour ago, Nathan Stark said:

They've attacked the Night's Watch at least twice, both times unprovoked. They bring back dead people they have killed to make them unwilling and maybe unwitting members of their army. And people think that there's a chance at peace here? That the Others are just misunderstood, that if everybody just has a little sit down and a nice chat they can just work it all out and be peaceful friendly neighbors? I really don't see any evidence that bares this out as a possibility.

Agreed. For some reason, humanity built the Wall, and not against wildlings.

But. I do believe this whole conflict will be about balance. The Others can't be defeated for an eternity, nor will the dragons go extinct forever, I imagine. It's all about balance. The balance of life is death. It's that simple. One of the many reasons I am giving no credit to the AA prophecy is because it gives a damn about balance.

Yet. We are told somehow the Night's King ended up giving his own seed to a female WW. There are several argument brought up on this thread too about the misjudgement of the NK. That guy somehow managed to get on a level of balance noone else did. I wonder if he was the Last Hero, tho.

Anyway, it's not the world, but humanity is what needs to be saved, and humanity eventually will fight for it's own sake. One can decide if that's good or bad, but it's really just inevitable, altough I believe the final solution isn't war.

[Jay21]

3 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Excuse me? Please explain PEACEFUL interactions involving Symeon Star Eyes and the white walkers. The white walkers are trying to exterminate humanity, and when somebody attacks you and tries to kill all your people, you fight back. 

They had nearly all of the wildlings north of the wall collected into one group and they let them escape despite the fact that nothing we've seen in Mance's or any wildling's hands can deter them. If anything is obvious, it's that they don't want to exterminate humanity.

[Jaenara Belarys]

That is true. But if they didn't want to exterminate humanity, why did they attack the Night's Watch rangers and the Fist? And while, yes it is strange that the Others didn't attack Mance's host like they did the NW, they did constantly attack the wilding villages, that's why the free folk wanted south of the Wall.

12 minutes ago, Jay21 said:

They had nearly all of the wildlings north of the wall collected into one group and they let them escape despite the fact that nothing we've seen in Mance's or any wildling's hands can deter them. If anything is obvious, it's that they don't want to exterminate humanity.

 

[Mourning Star]

28 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Excuse me? Please explain PEACEFUL interactions involving Symeon Star Eyes and the white walkers. The white walkers are trying to exterminate humanity, and when somebody attacks you and tries to kill all your people, you fight back. 

He is listed an example of a legendary quintessential knights...

Quote

 Not every man has it in him to be Prince Aemon the Dragonknight or Symeon Star-Eyes, and not every woman can be as brave as my Wylla and her sister Wynafryd … who did know, yet played her own part fearlessly.

A Dance with Dragons - Davos IV

And, I think it's no surprise the two, Star Eyes and the Dragonknight are listed together:

Quote

"True knights would never harm women and children." The words rang hollow in her ears even as she said them.
"True knights." The queen seemed to find that wonderfully amusing. "No doubt you're right. So why don't you just eat your broth like a good girl and wait for Symeon Star-Eyes and Prince Aemon the Dragonknight to come rescue you, sweetling. I'm sure it won't be very long now."

A Clash of Kings - Sansa V

And I'm not saying they never fought, Merwyn is said to have killed a dragon even, but they aren't remembered as devils who can't be communicated with. I think they are the white swords a thousand years before there were knights.

27 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

I don't see why you think that the humans should try to talk to the Others, because it seems pretty obvious they'd just kill the people you sent to talk.

Because it was only through learning the language of the Singers, the true tongue that the last hero could succeed where the armies of men failed.

1 hour ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

I would disagree since they've basically also been hammering down the point that the White Walkers Are Bad, Bad Creatures. Old Nan's stories, which have a history of being correct according to Wiki of Ice and Fire, basically make it obvious that white walkers, others, whatever you wanna call them are trying to kill all humans.

I agree that Old Nan is a great source of information, but I think you also need to do some interpreting...
 

Quote

He remembered the hearth tales Old Nan told them. The wildlings were cruel men, she said, slavers and slayers and thieves. They consorted with giants and ghouls, stole girl children in the dead of night, and drank blood from polished horns. And their women lay with the Others in the Long Night to sire terrible half-human children.

A Game of Thrones - Bran I

While all of the above might be true, that doesn't make all wildings inherently evil.

And this is exactly the point I'm, making about the Others.

[Jay21]

1 minute ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

That is true. But if they didn't want to exterminate humanity, why did they attack the Night's Watch rangers and the Fist? And while, yes it is strange that the Others didn't attack Mance's host like they did the NW, they did constantly attack the wilding villages, that's why the free folk wanted south of the Wall

300 members of the nights watch are a far cry from all humanity. Even still, members of the watch escaped.  Is this because killing them all was beyond the power of the Others and their risen soldiers or is it because they'd killed enough to send their message and the survivors were running south? I suspect that if they wanted to kill everyone they could have.  Same as with the Wildlings, they drove them out of their villages and have herded them south.  Slaughtering them all would have been easy at any point, but the fact that they didn't do it suggests that it was not their intention.

[Jaenara Belarys]

Wildlings and Others are two different matters. You can talk to the wildlings and the wildlings and the NW have a common enemy. You cannot talk to the White Walkers. And also, where's your proof that white walkers speak the True Tongue?

[Jaenara Belarys]

6 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Because it was only through learning the language of the Singers, the true tongue that the last hero could succeed where the armies of men failed.

 

The children probably also knew how to kill the white walkers.

[Nathan Stark]

29 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

I think this also kind of misses the point though... War can be bad, but that doesn't mean it is never justified.

Slavery is a good example of something systemic that could be worse than war, and worthy of fighting to oppose.

This isn't an ancient vs modern issue, it is a human issue. There is still plenty of war and slavery alive today in the world.

The solution to the problem of war however, isn't more war. Is war justified when you are forced to defend yourself? Sure, but it isn't the solution.

The Others didn't bother humanity for thousands of years, and I would argue that the ancient tales of Symeon Star Eyes and Merwyn are examples of peaceful interactions with the Others. I don't think any of the wars have been unprovoked, and I think a man was behind both the Long Night and the current return of the Others.

I genuinely think you have missed the entire point of the series if you think peace isn't an option to work towards. I really don't think you are supposed to come away aspiring to be Tywin Lannister, all practicality and no morality, and more than you are supposed to see the world in black and white like Melisandre.

Aren't the Others forcing the Nights Watch and the Wildlings to defend themselves? If and when they get south of the Wall, won't their actions force the Seven Kingdoms to defend themselves? Sometimes we have to accept that, in the absence of peaceful alternatives, war might be the only solution.

The bolded bit is really the point I am trying to make: war is bad, but sometimes necessary. That doesn't mean we should prefer it as an alternative by any means. We should however be fully aware of the costs of any war, even a necessary one, before we jump in. That didn't happen in the War of the Five Kings, and it didn't happen when Danearys began her war in Slavers Bay. 

That being said, I think you are missing the point. The Others are forcing the issue here, not the human characters. If the Others wanted any sort of peace with humanity, their actions do not show it. I suppose one could see Symeon Star-Eyes and Merwyn of the Mirror-Sheild as positive examples of human/Other interaction, but at this point that is entirely speculative. So far, the actual, in text evidence we have of the Others intentions towards humanity seem to be closer to Old Nan's interpretation. We have yet to see the Others acting benevolently towards humans on the page.

When the Others present a desire to make peace with humanity, than yes, it should be worked towards. The point you are missing, though, is that peace requires both trust and goodwill among all parties if it is to work. That is something the Others have not shown.

I don't know how you got the idea I was advocating for being like Tywin Lannister. My argument is not that we should be like Tywin Lannister. It is that the Others are forcing a major war with humanity right now, and that humans will have to come together to defend themselves right now.

The larger point of the series, as I see it, is the need to maintain balance. The story is called A Song of Ice and Fire, giving equal importance to both. Both can create and benefit, and both can destroy. And the Others seem, at this point, to be intent on destroying humanity. That should be prevented. It might be the case that peace can be achieved with the Others, but it doesn't seem that way right now.

[Jaenara Belarys]

6 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Because it was only through learning the language of the Singers, the true tongue that the last hero could succeed where the armies of men failed.

 

This is true (probably), but it's not just Children and Last Hero combine to save the world. 

[Jaenara Belarys]

1 minute ago, Nathan Stark said:

Aren't the Others forcing the Nights Watch and the Wildlings to defend themselves? If and when they get south of the Wall, won't their actions force the Seven Kingdoms to defend themselves? Sometimes we have to accept that, in the absence of peaceful alternatives, war might be the only solution.

 

This is correct. If somebody attacks you and tries to kill you, you shouldn't try to talk. You should kill them. The same holds true for humans and the Others. 

[Jaenara Belarys]

With the White Walkers I'd rather be Lord Tywin Lannister than a pig tied up waiting for somebody to butcher me.

[Mourning Star]

1 minute ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Wildlings and Others are two different matters. You can talk to the wildlings and the wildlings and the NW have a common enemy. You cannot talk to the White Walkers. And also, where's your proof that white walkers speak the True Tongue?

Not all the Wildlings though right?

What about Craster?

Why can't you talk to the white walkers? They can clearly talk...

Quote

The Other said something in a language that Will did not know; his voice was like the cracking of ice on a winter lake, and the words were mocking.

A Game of Thrones - Prologue

And the True Tongue spoken by the singers is also described as the sounds of nature, in this case winter:

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. 
A Dance with Dragons - Bran III

But yes, they probably did know how to fight the Others, or at least defend themselves.

Why would they make war with the Others when humanity is a larger existential threat to them?

 

[Jaenara Belarys]

OK, yes the White Walkers can talk. But the humans don't know their language. Only a select few humans are recorded to know the True Tongue ( Bran the Builder, Last Hero, etc etc.). Will doesn't know the True Tongue. Even Bran doesn't know it (yet). And also, we don't know that the white walker language is the True Tongue.