Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
YeniAy_Ottoman

Battle of Ice and Fire

Recommended Posts

Quote

"Dance with me..."

Hello again! Today I want to talk to you about the "theme" of the book series. It's my old thread.

There is no doubt that in traditional narratives, the “story” is generally divided into two as the good side and the bad side, and at the end of the war between the two, the good side wins.

The work of Tolkien, which we can regard as the father of Epic Fantasy, reflects exactly this. Those who follow him generally prefer this kind of expression. The epics that are described in folk legends also proceed basically through the war of good and evil, and literature has already been influenced by these legends, drawing such a skeleton and bringing it on.

In fact, this war between good and evil (especially in folk legends) represents the good-bad side in man. People can do good things but also bad things. According to the perception of old people - also common today - people are either white or black. It is either completely good or completely bad. (This view is not exactly wrong, but also it is not exactly correct, but I hope we will come to this part in ASOIAF.)

So we see good and bad human war in stories, or what constitutes the "bad" side may be "creatures" who have taken on all the bad qualities of people. In Tolkien, these "orcs" and "goblin" species were living things.

The Concept of Good and Bad in ASOIAF

GRRM's book, Song of Ice and Fire, is not so different in the "good-bad" battle, but things are a little different here.

The authors of other stories basically regarded man as "good or bad", but according to GRRM's perception, people are neither totally good nor bad; we are the creatures that carry both of things.

Quote

Men are still capable of great heroism. But I don’t necessarily think there are heroes. That’s something that’s very much in my books: I believe in great characters. We’re all capable of doing great things, and of doing bad things. We have the angels and the demons inside of us, and our lives are a succession of choices…[Woodrow Wilson] was a racist who tried to end war. Now, does one cancel out the other? Well, they don’t cancel out the other. You can’t make him a hero or a villain. He was both. And we’re all both.

 

"... better men than Stannis have done worse things than this." - Aemon Targaryen

As we read the history of ASOIAF and the present time, we witness that people do both good and bad things regardless of men and women. Of course, some characters can do darker and much worse things, while others can do much brighter and often good things. In other words, the extreme points of the "gray" characters are also present in the series, but this does not prevent GRRM from reflecting its overview.

From the first book there was a general hatred towards Jaime Lannister, we read from the Stark's point of view, not from his point of view. But when GRRM switched to Jaime POVs, then he went down into the character and was not as evil as we thought it was; we have seen regrets, he was doing good things but doing bad things too. Of course, we developed sympathy and even some readers became fans.

Even though Cersei Lannister is basically "bad" in character, we understood why she did what she did when we switched to her POVs, and we are confronted with the fact that if we were in her position we could do some things - probably.

In the first POV, Dany Targaryen appeared us as a sympathetic, cute girl. She was loved by many readers, but the fact of her destruction and massacre in Essos showed us that a character is capable of doing bad things, albeit for good.

When we look at the Battle of Stark-Lannister on both sides and through the eyes of the people, we saw that heroes-murderers-rapists existed and that both sides hurt the people. But who can say that the Starks and Lannisters are completely bad or good? They are both good and bad. Both sides have their own right reasons to fight.

What is the Song of Ice and Fire?

We know that GRRM was influenced by the ice and fire poetry of US poet Robert Frost. What is that poem?

Quote

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

(I got help from the booksofthelord diary in analyzing poetry because poetry is not my field.)

While fire is passion, ice is expressed as hate, and he tried to explain that the world could / would be destroyed by these two intense emotions.

Indeed, it is not too wrong; The course of the world is not in a good shape as people's passion for power or hatred of something / people constantly causes wars and greed. We are proceeding to destroy not only humanity but also nature, and as the main reason for this; we can show hatred and passion / lust / desire. Everything else arises from these two emotions.

If we would adapt this to asoiaf, there is a household that represents the fire; Targaryen. Even if we include the dragon lords of Valyria period; Since then, fire representatives have set the earth / societies on fire because of the desire to rule something.

We know that Valyria's dragon lords push the Emperor Ghiscar Empire into "slavery order". For this reason, slavery started in cities like Meeren, the representative of his grandchildren and cultures, but this time they are facing destruction because of the same person / s. We know that Dany is a very passionate character as a fire.

 

Quote

The cedars that had once grown tall along the coast grew no more, felled by the axes of the Old Empire or consumed by dragonfire when Ghis made war against Valyria. Once the trees had gone, the soil baked beneath the hot sun and blew away in thick red clouds. "It was these calamities that transformed my people into slavers," Galazza Galare had told her, at the Temple of the Graces. And I am the calamity that will change these slavers back into people, Dany had sworn to herself.

On the other hand, the people / s representing the ice side are also called the Others. (Surely there are many, but let's look at the obvious ones.). Although it is difficult to make a definitive decision because we know almost nothing about their side, it would not be wrong to think that the ice side acted with the feeling of “hate” by looking at the poem. We do not know the reason for this, of course, but many theories can be produced for this. We know that the others are progressing beyond the wall, by killing those who come before them, and adding them to their army. It is obvious that they have no affection for this warm-blooded species.

In summary, ice and fire proceed by destroying, and the purpose of both seems to destroy each other.

The words "song", which is the name of the series, and the words "dance" that repeat frequently in the series, are the terms that express war and death as a metaphor. (Things like Water Dance etc.) In fact, the word "song" could possibly mean something else. (Like "life" or "circe")

Choose your side?

Who's good, who's bad? Whose side do we need to be on?

We passed the war between families and people, okay. We all have one side. Well, let's come to the Battle of R’hllor and the Great Other, that is, the war of ice and fire. Who is good, who is bad?

In fact, although I think the above articles are sufficient in response to this, it will be more concrete information to reveal GRRM's view of stories.

Quote

Much as I admire Tolkien, and I do admire Tolkien — he’s been a huge influence on me, and his Lord of the Rings is the mountain that leans over every other fantasy written since and shaped all of modern fantasy — there are things about it, the whole concept of the Dark Lord, and good guys battling bad guys, Good versus Evil, while brilliantly handled in Tolkien, in the hands of many Tolkien successors, it has become kind of a cartoon. We don’t need any more Dark Lords, we don’t need any more, “Here are the good guys, they’re in white, there are the bad guys, they’re in black. And also, they’re really ugly, the bad guys.”

 

To explain these statements a bit more, GRRM is now overwhelmed by the stories about the good-villain war and believes that changes should be made. We no longer need bad black ugly men to confront good guys. We need the story of people who can do great and bad things. We expect evil in a traditional story from an ugly and ominous dwarf, but in asoiaf, a shapeless character like Tyrion can do both good and bad; he turns into a character that has gained the love and admiration of the reader. Or a character that looks very beautiful like Joffrey, he turning into a character that does disgusting work and we expect evil from him now… There is no doubt that we are faced with much more realistic characters. Because we encounter all this in our own life.

Quote

Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it’s not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren’t gone – they’re in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles? The war that Tolkien wrote about was a war for the fate of civilization and the future of humanity, and that’s become the template. I’m not sure that it’s a good template, though. The Tolkien model led generations of fantasy writers to produce these endless series of dark lords and their evil minions who are all very ugly and wear black clothes. But the vast majority of wars throughout history are not like that.

Again, there is a criticism of a "dark lord" and a "bad man / side". Orcs are bad black men, but are their babies too? Would you kill them too? Is that how it is in real life or are there bad people on both sides of the war? So no matter both sides of the war are not entirely good and not entirely bad; the devil is not at all. (Ok, some people they are.)

Based on this view, it is pointless to expect pure bad and pure good. So we cannot say that neither R’hllor nor the Great Other is totally good or completely bad. Naturally, those who want to choose “sides” will have to make this decision according to their own values, expectations and desires. There will be people and households on the ice side like people on the fire side.

The leaders /champions of ice or firewill not be a savior / hero for ordinary peoples / neutrals. An AA will come out, yes but AA is not will defeat the master of evil, and will not shine brightly on earth. In fact, if we establish logic, whichever one of the two wars wins, the situation cannot be very heartwarming; endless summer and endless winter are not good concepts.

We need the balance factor; to end the war of both sides and make peace. We need someone who does not act with passion and hate, who can suppress these two bad emotions forever (at least for many years). Peace and tranquility in Asoiaf can only be possible at that time(It's Jon Snow to me).

Thnak you for read. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon does act with passion and hate. Much more so than Daenerys.  

Jon Snow murdered Janos Slynt because he disliked the man. There was bad blood between them. He was being a Stark, which he should have left behind.  His passionate love for Arya Stark caused him to betray the Night’s Watch. He attacked Ser Alliser, an officer of the watch, and tried to kill him. Jon is a hothead with a very short fuse.  He has always had a chip on his shoulder. He is not who you want as a leader.  I would want Daenerys to rule.  Jon is not fit to rule.  His own men was forced to remove him. That’s how bad Jon was. His time as Lord Commander will go down in history as the darkest of times for the NW.  Jon is a very emotional man who allows his feelings to dictate his decisions.  Jon is most certainly not going to bring peace and tranquility to any place.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Prince Rhaego Targaryen said:

Jon does act with passion and hate. Much more so than Daenerys.  

Jon Snow murdered Janos Slynt because he disliked the man. There was bad blood between them. He was being a Stark, which he should have left behind.  His passionate love for Arya Stark caused him to betray the Night’s Watch. He attacked Ser Alliser, an officer of the watch, and tried to kill him. Jon is a hothead with a very short fuse.  He has always had a chip on his shoulder. He is not who you want as a leader.  I would want Daenerys to rule.  Jon is not fit to rule.  His own men was forced to remove him. That’s how bad Jon was. His time as Lord Commander will go down in history as the darkest of times for the NW.  Jon is a very emotional man who allows his feelings to dictate his decisions.  Jon is most certainly not going to bring peace and tranquility to any place.  

Tell me then, how do you see the end of the story and the fate of these characters?

The most important thing you entirely missed was the parallel between Daenerys and Jon. That both make serious mistakes and both learn how to rule. At the same time, during ADWD. Seriously, how do you imagine the outcome of the books? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, YeniAy_Ottoman said:

Hello again! Today I want to talk to you about the "theme" of the book series. It's my old thread.

There is no doubt that in traditional narratives, the “story” is generally divided into two as the good side and the bad side, and at the end of the war between the two, the good side wins.

The work of Tolkien, which we can regard as the father of Epic Fantasy, reflects exactly this. Those who follow him generally prefer this kind of expression. The epics that are described in folk legends also proceed basically through the war of good and evil, and literature has already been influenced by these legends, drawing such a skeleton and bringing it on.

In fact, this war between good and evil (especially in folk legends) represents the good-bad side in man. People can do good things but also bad things. According to the perception of old people - also common today - people are either white or black. It is either completely good or completely bad. (This view is not exactly wrong, but also it is not exactly correct, but I hope we will come to this part in ASOIAF.)

So we see good and bad human war in stories, or what constitutes the "bad" side may be "creatures" who have taken on all the bad qualities of people. In Tolkien, these "orcs" and "goblin" species were living things.

The Concept of Good and Bad in ASOIAF

GRRM's book, Song of Ice and Fire, is not so different in the "good-bad" battle, but things are a little different here.

The authors of other stories basically regarded man as "good or bad", but according to GRRM's perception, people are neither totally good nor bad; we are the creatures that carry both of things.

 

"... better men than Stannis have done worse things than this." - Aemon Targaryen

As we read the history of ASOIAF and the present time, we witness that people do both good and bad things regardless of men and women. Of course, some characters can do darker and much worse things, while others can do much brighter and often good things. In other words, the extreme points of the "gray" characters are also present in the series, but this does not prevent GRRM from reflecting its overview.

From the first book there was a general hatred towards Jaime Lannister, we read from the Stark's point of view, not from his point of view. But when GRRM switched to Jaime POVs, then he went down into the character and was not as evil as we thought it was; we have seen regrets, he was doing good things but doing bad things too. Of course, we developed sympathy and even some readers became fans.

Even though Cersei Lannister is basically "bad" in character, we understood why she did what she did when we switched to her POVs, and we are confronted with the fact that if we were in her position we could do some things - probably.

In the first POV, Dany Targaryen appeared us as a sympathetic, cute girl. She was loved by many readers, but the fact of her destruction and massacre in Essos showed us that a character is capable of doing bad things, albeit for good.

When we look at the Battle of Stark-Lannister on both sides and through the eyes of the people, we saw that heroes-murderers-rapists existed and that both sides hurt the people. But who can say that the Starks and Lannisters are completely bad or good? They are both good and bad. Both sides have their own right reasons to fight.

What is the Song of Ice and Fire?

We know that GRRM was influenced by the ice and fire poetry of US poet Robert Frost. What is that poem?

(I got help from the booksofthelord diary in analyzing poetry because poetry is not my field.)

While fire is passion, ice is expressed as hate, and he tried to explain that the world could / would be destroyed by these two intense emotions.

Indeed, it is not too wrong; The course of the world is not in a good shape as people's passion for power or hatred of something / people constantly causes wars and greed. We are proceeding to destroy not only humanity but also nature, and as the main reason for this; we can show hatred and passion / lust / desire. Everything else arises from these two emotions.

If we would adapt this to asoiaf, there is a household that represents the fire; Targaryen. Even if we include the dragon lords of Valyria period; Since then, fire representatives have set the earth / societies on fire because of the desire to rule something.

We know that Valyria's dragon lords push the Emperor Ghiscar Empire into "slavery order". For this reason, slavery started in cities like Meeren, the representative of his grandchildren and cultures, but this time they are facing destruction because of the same person / s. We know that Dany is a very passionate character as a fire.

 

On the other hand, the people / s representing the ice side are also called the Others. (Surely there are many, but let's look at the obvious ones.). Although it is difficult to make a definitive decision because we know almost nothing about their side, it would not be wrong to think that the ice side acted with the feeling of “hate” by looking at the poem. We do not know the reason for this, of course, but many theories can be produced for this. We know that the others are progressing beyond the wall, by killing those who come before them, and adding them to their army. It is obvious that they have no affection for this warm-blooded species.

In summary, ice and fire proceed by destroying, and the purpose of both seems to destroy each other.

The words "song", which is the name of the series, and the words "dance" that repeat frequently in the series, are the terms that express war and death as a metaphor. (Things like Water Dance etc.) In fact, the word "song" could possibly mean something else. (Like "life" or "circe")

Choose your side?

Who's good, who's bad? Whose side do we need to be on?

We passed the war between families and people, okay. We all have one side. Well, let's come to the Battle of R’hllor and the Great Other, that is, the war of ice and fire. Who is good, who is bad?

In fact, although I think the above articles are sufficient in response to this, it will be more concrete information to reveal GRRM's view of stories.

 

To explain these statements a bit more, GRRM is now overwhelmed by the stories about the good-villain war and believes that changes should be made. We no longer need bad black ugly men to confront good guys. We need the story of people who can do great and bad things. We expect evil in a traditional story from an ugly and ominous dwarf, but in asoiaf, a shapeless character like Tyrion can do both good and bad; he turns into a character that has gained the love and admiration of the reader. Or a character that looks very beautiful like Joffrey, he turning into a character that does disgusting work and we expect evil from him now… There is no doubt that we are faced with much more realistic characters. Because we encounter all this in our own life.

Again, there is a criticism of a "dark lord" and a "bad man / side". Orcs are bad black men, but are their babies too? Would you kill them too? Is that how it is in real life or are there bad people on both sides of the war? So no matter both sides of the war are not entirely good and not entirely bad; the devil is not at all. (Ok, some people they are.)

Based on this view, it is pointless to expect pure bad and pure good. So we cannot say that neither R’hllor nor the Great Other is totally good or completely bad. Naturally, those who want to choose “sides” will have to make this decision according to their own values, expectations and desires. There will be people and households on the ice side like people on the fire side.

The leaders /champions of ice or firewill not be a savior / hero for ordinary peoples / neutrals. An AA will come out, yes but AA is not will defeat the master of evil, and will not shine brightly on earth. In fact, if we establish logic, whichever one of the two wars wins, the situation cannot be very heartwarming; endless summer and endless winter are not good concepts.

We need the balance factor; to end the war of both sides and make peace. We need someone who does not act with passion and hate, who can suppress these two bad emotions forever (at least for many years). Peace and tranquility in Asoiaf can only be possible at that time(It's Jon Snow to me).

Thnak you for read. :)

The elements are the building blocks of the world.  Fire and ice, water, and earth all are what the world is made of.  They will always exist.  Water makes life possible but one can drown in it.  Cold and ice keeps life in check and prevent overpopulation.  Darkness puts the world to sleep and gives Nature a chance to rest.  Fire is life. It gives warmth but an endless summer will result in overpopulation and overuse of natural resources.  I think this is the big picture that Quaithe wants Dany to see.  The long night must happen because it gives Nature a time to rest before life can once again multiply.

The elements make existence possible but all of them can destroy.  Fire destroyed the Valyrian Freehold.  We don't know what destroyed Asshai but it is presumably elemental.  Ice will be the destroyer this time around.  So that makes Ice the villain this time around. 

20 hours ago, YeniAy_Ottoman said:

We need the balance factor; to end the war of both sides and make peace. We need someone who does not act with passion and hate, who can suppress these two bad emotions forever (at least for many years). Peace and tranquility in Asoiaf can only be possible at that time(It's Jon Snow to me).

Peace and tranquility!  Then you cannot mean Jon Snow.  He was going to lead an attack before Bowen Marsh pulled him down.  It is illegal for the Nights Watch to attack the people of the Seven Kingdoms.  Dany, on the other hand, was willing to make huge compromises, even with very evil people, in order to have peace.  She was willing to put her children in confinement to serve what she believed to be the greater good.  I wonder if Jon would be willing to lock Arya in prison to serve the greater good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Men are men. 
GRRM has made men of characters, so life like, to feel as if one is watching a documentary.

There is a literal line in the books. Black and White. Murders, thieves, and rapists on one side and things that may be less than men. Or things greater than man, that wear cloaks with white feathers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Prince Rhaego Targaryen said:

Jon does act with passion and hate. Much more so than Daenerys.  

Jon Snow murdered Janos Slynt because he disliked the man. There was bad blood between them. He was being a Stark, which he should have left behind.  His passionate love for Arya Stark caused him to betray the Night’s Watch. He attacked Ser Alliser, an officer of the watch, and tried to kill him. Jon is a hothead with a very short fuse.  He has always had a chip on his shoulder. He is not who you want as a leader.  I would want Daenerys to rule.  Jon is not fit to rule.  His own men was forced to remove him. That’s how bad Jon was. His time as Lord Commander will go down in history as the darkest of times for the NW.  Jon is a very emotional man who allows his feelings to dictate his decisions.  Jon is most certainly not going to bring peace and tranquility to any place.  

You used words that make me feel like you are describing Dany. 

No one can expect a person to be out of emotion. We are human beings, not robots. Even if you are an animal, animals also have emotions. What makes a person human; it's about how much you can master those emotions. No human being is perfect, naturally every person stumbles from time to time. The problem is those who stumble often ... 

Jon is a person who can dominate his emotions most of the time. Jon has his own desires and ambitions, but he dominates them. I can give the similarity of the Jon-Theon as an example of this. This is what I have to say is what is said and approved by the GRRM itself.

Jon and Theon are two characters with similar circumstances and similar feelings. The two of them grew up under Ned's supervision, and both never really belonged to the Stark family but wanted to be. Theon is in his current state as he allows his ambitions and desires to poison him. Theon, as you say, is someone who moves with his emotions. Jon, on the other hand, has come to terms with what is happening and doesn't let his ambitions and desires poison him. Jon coped well with being a bastard. Theon wants to be a hero like Jon, but he could never be and is poisoned by his desires. Theon is Jon's foil character. Looking at Theon is the answer to the question of what he would turn into if Jon were the prisoner of his desires. 

For example; Despite all his desires when Stannis made his offer, Jon chose to stick to his vows. Despite his feelings for Ygritte, he chose to stick to his vows. Despite his father and Robb, he again chose to stick to his vows. If he was Theon, what would he do? He would immediately accept the offer, possibly even betraying NW in the first place because of Ygritte. Jon passed these three tests as he mastered his desires and emotions. However, he struggled about Arya, he surrendered to his feelings about Arya, he failed Arya test. 

Because despite all that control, every person has points where they are weak. Arya is Jon's weak spot. It gets "bad" because Jon stumbles on this, but how does Dany get "good" even though she stumbles many times? I like Dany, one of my favorites but I like more to be realistic. So, you shouldn't be as surrendering to your loving feelings for Dany and to your antipathetic feelings for the Starks.

Thank you.

3 hours ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

Peace and tranquility!  Then you cannot mean Jon Snow.  He was going to lead an attack before Bowen Marsh pulled him down.  It is illegal for the Nights Watch to attack the people of the Seven Kingdoms.  Dany, on the other hand, was willing to make huge compromises, even with very evil people, in order to have peace.  She was willing to put her children in confinement to serve what she believed to be the greater good.  I wonder if Jon would be willing to lock Arya in prison to serve the greater good. 

 

I'm not sure why this topic turned to Dany vs Jon comparison. The subject of this topic was that neither side of the war can be portrayed as bad and good, since there is no pure good or pure evil. It was on Martin's rejection of the traditional war of good and evil. 

If you are doing this by going into a defense psychology because I give an example of Dany's action in the article, actually the topic has a content in your favor. This article also serves as an objection against those who declare her bad by protest the negative consequences of Dany's action as an example.

In addition to what I wrote to the other friend ...

Each character has a theme, a role. I can see that Martin wrote a chain of events for them according to these roles. For Dany, it's probably AA. Everyone reads that Dany is taking action to conquer Westeros and have the words of fire and blood reign. Dany wants to rule, the conquest of the three cities and all they lived are written in accordance with this arc. There's more to it than that, it's all actually a trailer.

Dany has clearly shown us 2 things so far; 1. Dany is very good at conquering and managing an army. In this respect, Martin likened Dany to Nymeria. The second thing is that Dany is not so good when it comes to ruling. He has too many chains of errors. If Dany learns from them, then mistakes never repeat, and we'll see good things when she comes to Westeros, but while she's there there are too many signs that Dany's future will not be good at all. Above all, those prophecies of the Undying Once ...

The trailer is over here ... The people of Meereen see Dany as an invader, that green grace has made it clear.

Quote

"Can you?" the Green Grace asked. "A king is not a god, but there is still much that a strong man might do. When my people look at you, they see a conqueror from across the seas, come to murder us and make slaves of our children. A king could change that. A highborn king of pure Ghiscari blood could reconcile the city to your rule. Elsewise, I fear, your reign must end as it began, in blood and fire."

Dany stans is stuck of this idea; the resistance of the Meereen people because of their desire to restore the old slavery order...  Let's be logical, when a stranger invades your country, you don't think good things for her. Especially if that person destroyed the economy of the country, if her freedmen raped you and plundered your property ... Especially if she caused you to live a slave life by selling yourself as a slave. 

She is an invader (for Meereen people) and she have devastated everyone from top to bottom. She promised better but created worse. Moreover, she hates those people, she don't respect their culture, the people around her have to force her to impose certain cultural things.

Quote

Dany had wanted to ban the tokar when she took Meereen, but her advisors had convinced her otherwise. "The Mother of Dragons must don the tokar or be forever hated," warned the Green Grace, Galazza Galare. "In the wools of Westeros or a gown of Myrish lace, Your Radiance shall forever remain a stranger amongst us, a grotesque outlander, a barbarian conqueror. Meereen's queen must be a lady of Old Ghis." Brown Ben Plumm, the captain of the Second Sons, had put it more succinctly. "Man wants to be the king o' the rabbits, he best wear a pair o' floppy ears."

Banning a dress? Why? Because slave masters are wearing it? Bad icon for Dany, but it's their traditional dress ... It's unacceptable for her to think of such a thing, even on such a simple matter. Of course, wrong practices must be stopped, but they have to happen over time and with smart tactics.

Let me give an example; When the Ottomans conquered the lands in eastern Europe, they saw in some regions, as written in the books, that lord was the tradition of the right of the first night.

Such a thing was an unacceptable tradition for Muslims. First of all, it was objectionable in two ways; Extramarital sex is prohibited in Islam, and it was also a bullying to the public. The problem is that the Ottoman Empire had just conquered those lands and had to act wisely to establish a permanent order and gain acceptance. The solution produced by the pasha (lord) who ruled there was as follows; this tradition will not be completely removed, but will be reorganized. Lords could no longer have sex with any bride, but would charge "taxes" from them. This is a very clever move. Both the tyranny to people had ended, as well as protecting the lord's interest, so that the Ottoman Empire avoided looking like invaders attacking their culture. They applied this style of approach everywhere and as a result they were able to rule for 600 years.

So the key word is; adaptation. Until now, unfortunately, Dany has not learned this. Therefore, she was not accepted.

Nor will Dany be in any better shape when it comes to Westeros. She has adopted the latest words of fire and blood, she is no longer the mother who imprisons her babies, but a dragon that can destroy anyone who stands before her. 

I saw a good topic on Reddit yesterday; Could there be a war of religions in Westeros because of different religions ... so because of Aegon and Dany's religion ...

Dany undoubtedly believes in Seven. Despite this, we know that Moqorro went to her. He will convince Dany of the AA issue, even if she is not a became a follower of R'hllor, she is supported by the followers of R'hllor. Dany grew up with the Essos culture, even her accent is Tyrosh. Next to him is an army of foreigners.

Aegon belongs to the Seven religion. It grew up with the southern culture of Westeros. His army is those of Westeros origin. Jon also belongs to the old religion. He grew up with the northern culture of Westeros.

Three dragons belonging to three different religions, three different cultures. This will be a problem. At least between Aegon and Dany ...

Jorah had clearly said that Dany would look like an invader. Currently, Dany appears to be an invader in Meereen. Consequently, Dany's Essos failure will continue in Westeros to a greater extent. Hope you didn't think everything would be fine? This is Martin. So Dany's Essos arc is a trailer showing us the Westeros arc for us.

Jon... We saw a feature of Jon in the first pov of the first book. Manipurist and mediator, persuasive skills ... Jon used these abilities from time to time and got what he wanted in a way. Undoubtedly, the things we are talking about are the little things in the first; Like convincing Ned about the wolves, convincing the boys about Sam ...But then Jon starts to persuades Stannis and even manipled him once at least; He convinces the lords about free folk (mountain lords ... and he convinces most of his men) ... Despite his zero source of income, Jon was able to solve a major NW problem by persuading Iron Bank to lend them

Here's the trailer of Jon's arc; 

In book 3, we learn that there is Free Folk blood among the Stark ancestors, right or wrong. So Jon is part of Free Folk. This was often used against Jon and other people said "this boy is a wilding".

Now Jon has a bond that belongs to both sides; Jon persuades and unites parties that have been enemies for thousands of years. He took steps in this direction. 

Jon was prejudiced against Free Folk at first, just as Dany was prejudiced against the Meereen people. He called them wilding. He fought them. He killed them. As he lived in them, he learned about their culture and gradually got rid of his prejudice. He calls them free folk now. Jon embraced them. He learned to respect their culture. He loved them and chose to protect them. Think like that; From Jon's point of view, they are people who killed their friends, maybe they killed his uncle. Jon did not forget his losses. But he saw that the right thing was peace, not war, because a great war is coming.

Of course, Jon made some mistakes at this stage and was not flawlessly successful, but despite that he has had a great deal of success, and the Free Folk, which never obeys, is now obeying and serving Jon. Who has achieved this in history? FF sees Jon as a Stark and a crow, moreover Jon also betrayed them. Despite all this, in general, FF began to love and respect Jon and so they obeyed him, he persuaded them.

A good sign that Jon is the "balance" factor I mentioned in this topic. Now imagine Jon doing the same between ice and fire. Because in Jon's arc the plot of persuasion and mediation has stalled. The issue of merging NW and FF, the enemy of thousands of years, was a trailer, we will watch the real movie as the war of ice and fire begins. There's a reason Jon's parents are fire and ice. Jon is both ice and fire.

Either because Jon will sit on the Iron Throne, or because he will be the real savior in the battle of ice and fire. Considering the Bran issue, probably the second reason ... Otherwise, the biggest twist in the story would have no reason, which is a huge mistake that only a novice writer can make. GRRM is not a novice writer.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

The elements are the building blocks of the world.  Fire and ice, water, and earth all are what the world is made of.  They will always exist.  Water makes life possible but one can drown in it.  Cold and ice keeps life in check and prevent overpopulation.  Darkness puts the world to sleep and gives Nature a chance to rest.  Fire is life. It gives warmth but an endless summer will result in overpopulation and overuse of natural resources.  I think this is the big picture that Quaithe wants Dany to see.  The long night must happen because it gives Nature a time to rest before life can once again multiply.

The elements make existence possible but all of them can destroy.  Fire destroyed the Valyrian Freehold.  We don't know what destroyed Asshai but it is presumably elemental.  Ice will be the destroyer this time around.  So that makes Ice the villain this time around. 

Peace and tranquility!  Then you cannot mean Jon Snow.  He was going to lead an attack before Bowen Marsh pulled him down.  It is illegal for the Nights Watch to attack the people of the Seven Kingdoms.  Dany, on the other hand, was willing to make huge compromises, even with very evil people, in order to have peace.  She was willing to put her children in confinement to serve what she believed to be the greater good.  I wonder if Jon would be willing to lock Arya in prison to serve the greater good. 

Agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)


A Dance of Dragons. Tyrion 12. 
Signing contracts with the Second Sons.

"If you like. They are all the same, by and large. Except for the ones at the bottom, but we'll get to those in due course."

by the pricking of my thumb...

Your move GRRM. I can’t wait.

Edited by Fool Stands On Giant’s Toe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/15/2021 at 1:44 PM, YeniAy_Ottoman said:

You used words that make me feel like you are describing Dany. 

No one can expect a person to be out of emotion. We are human beings, not robots. Even if you are an animal, animals also have emotions. What makes a person human; it's about how much you can master those emotions. No human being is perfect, naturally every person stumbles from time to time. The problem is those who stumble often ... 

Jon is a person who can dominate his emotions most of the time. Jon has his own desires and ambitions, but he dominates them. I can give the similarity of the Jon-Theon as an example of this. This is what I have to say is what is said and approved by the GRRM itself.

Jon and Theon are two characters with similar circumstances and similar feelings. The two of them grew up under Ned's supervision, and both never really belonged to the Stark family but wanted to be. Theon is in his current state as he allows his ambitions and desires to poison him. Theon, as you say, is someone who moves with his emotions. Jon, on the other hand, has come to terms with what is happening and doesn't let his ambitions and desires poison him. Jon coped well with being a bastard. Theon wants to be a hero like Jon, but he could never be and is poisoned by his desires. Theon is Jon's foil character. Looking at Theon is the answer to the question of what he would turn into if Jon were the prisoner of his desires. 

For example; Despite all his desires when Stannis made his offer, Jon chose to stick to his vows. Despite his feelings for Ygritte, he chose to stick to his vows. Despite his father and Robb, he again chose to stick to his vows. If he was Theon, what would he do? He would immediately accept the offer, possibly even betraying NW in the first place because of Ygritte. Jon passed these three tests as he mastered his desires and emotions. However, he struggled about Arya, he surrendered to his feelings about Arya, he failed Arya test. 

Because despite all that control, every person has points where they are weak. Arya is Jon's weak spot. It gets "bad" because Jon stumbles on this, but how does Dany get "good" even though she stumbles many times? I like Dany, one of my favorites but I like more to be realistic. So, you shouldn't be as surrendering to your loving feelings for Dany and to your antipathetic feelings for the Starks.

Thank you.

 

I'm not sure why this topic turned to Dany vs Jon comparison. The subject of this topic was that neither side of the war can be portrayed as bad and good, since there is no pure good or pure evil. It was on Martin's rejection of the traditional war of good and evil. 

If you are doing this by going into a defense psychology because I give an example of Dany's action in the article, actually the topic has a content in your favor. This article also serves as an objection against those who declare her bad by protest the negative consequences of Dany's action as an example.

In addition to what I wrote to the other friend ...

Each character has a theme, a role. I can see that Martin wrote a chain of events for them according to these roles. For Dany, it's probably AA. Everyone reads that Dany is taking action to conquer Westeros and have the words of fire and blood reign. Dany wants to rule, the conquest of the three cities and all they lived are written in accordance with this arc. There's more to it than that, it's all actually a trailer.

Dany has clearly shown us 2 things so far; 1. Dany is very good at conquering and managing an army. In this respect, Martin likened Dany to Nymeria. The second thing is that Dany is not so good when it comes to ruling. He has too many chains of errors. If Dany learns from them, then mistakes never repeat, and we'll see good things when she comes to Westeros, but while she's there there are too many signs that Dany's future will not be good at all. Above all, those prophecies of the Undying Once ...

The trailer is over here ... The people of Meereen see Dany as an invader, that green grace has made it clear.

Dany stans is stuck of this idea; the resistance of the Meereen people because of their desire to restore the old slavery order...  Let's be logical, when a stranger invades your country, you don't think good things for her. Especially if that person destroyed the economy of the country, if her freedmen raped you and plundered your property ... Especially if she caused you to live a slave life by selling yourself as a slave. 

She is an invader (for Meereen people) and she have devastated everyone from top to bottom. She promised better but created worse. Moreover, she hates those people, she don't respect their culture, the people around her have to force her to impose certain cultural things.

Banning a dress? Why? Because slave masters are wearing it? Bad icon for Dany, but it's their traditional dress ... It's unacceptable for her to think of such a thing, even on such a simple matter. Of course, wrong practices must be stopped, but they have to happen over time and with smart tactics.

Let me give an example; When the Ottomans conquered the lands in eastern Europe, they saw in some regions, as written in the books, that lord was the tradition of the right of the first night.

Such a thing was an unacceptable tradition for Muslims. First of all, it was objectionable in two ways; Extramarital sex is prohibited in Islam, and it was also a bullying to the public. The problem is that the Ottoman Empire had just conquered those lands and had to act wisely to establish a permanent order and gain acceptance. The solution produced by the pasha (lord) who ruled there was as follows; this tradition will not be completely removed, but will be reorganized. Lords could no longer have sex with any bride, but would charge "taxes" from them. This is a very clever move. Both the tyranny to people had ended, as well as protecting the lord's interest, so that the Ottoman Empire avoided looking like invaders attacking their culture. They applied this style of approach everywhere and as a result they were able to rule for 600 years.

So the key word is; adaptation. Until now, unfortunately, Dany has not learned this. Therefore, she was not accepted.

Nor will Dany be in any better shape when it comes to Westeros. She has adopted the latest words of fire and blood, she is no longer the mother who imprisons her babies, but a dragon that can destroy anyone who stands before her. 

I saw a good topic on Reddit yesterday; Could there be a war of religions in Westeros because of different religions ... so because of Aegon and Dany's religion ...

Dany undoubtedly believes in Seven. Despite this, we know that Moqorro went to her. He will convince Dany of the AA issue, even if she is not a became a follower of R'hllor, she is supported by the followers of R'hllor. Dany grew up with the Essos culture, even her accent is Tyrosh. Next to him is an army of foreigners.

Aegon belongs to the Seven religion. It grew up with the southern culture of Westeros. His army is those of Westeros origin. Jon also belongs to the old religion. He grew up with the northern culture of Westeros.

Three dragons belonging to three different religions, three different cultures. This will be a problem. At least between Aegon and Dany ...

Jorah had clearly said that Dany would look like an invader. Currently, Dany appears to be an invader in Meereen. Consequently, Dany's Essos failure will continue in Westeros to a greater extent. Hope you didn't think everything would be fine? This is Martin. So Dany's Essos arc is a trailer showing us the Westeros arc for us.

Jon... We saw a feature of Jon in the first pov of the first book. Manipurist and mediator, persuasive skills ... Jon used these abilities from time to time and got what he wanted in a way. Undoubtedly, the things we are talking about are the little things in the first; Like convincing Ned about the wolves, convincing the boys about Sam ...But then Jon starts to persuades Stannis and even manipled him once at least; He convinces the lords about free folk (mountain lords ... and he convinces most of his men) ... Despite his zero source of income, Jon was able to solve a major NW problem by persuading Iron Bank to lend them

Here's the trailer of Jon's arc; 

In book 3, we learn that there is Free Folk blood among the Stark ancestors, right or wrong. So Jon is part of Free Folk. This was often used against Jon and other people said "this boy is a wilding".

Now Jon has a bond that belongs to both sides; Jon persuades and unites parties that have been enemies for thousands of years. He took steps in this direction. 

Jon was prejudiced against Free Folk at first, just as Dany was prejudiced against the Meereen people. He called them wilding. He fought them. He killed them. As he lived in them, he learned about their culture and gradually got rid of his prejudice. He calls them free folk now. Jon embraced them. He learned to respect their culture. He loved them and chose to protect them. Think like that; From Jon's point of view, they are people who killed their friends, maybe they killed his uncle. Jon did not forget his losses. But he saw that the right thing was peace, not war, because a great war is coming.

Of course, Jon made some mistakes at this stage and was not flawlessly successful, but despite that he has had a great deal of success, and the Free Folk, which never obeys, is now obeying and serving Jon. Who has achieved this in history? FF sees Jon as a Stark and a crow, moreover Jon also betrayed them. Despite all this, in general, FF began to love and respect Jon and so they obeyed him, he persuaded them.

A good sign that Jon is the "balance" factor I mentioned in this topic. Now imagine Jon doing the same between ice and fire. Because in Jon's arc the plot of persuasion and mediation has stalled. The issue of merging NW and FF, the enemy of thousands of years, was a trailer, we will watch the real movie as the war of ice and fire begins. There's a reason Jon's parents are fire and ice. Jon is both ice and fire.

Either because Jon will sit on the Iron Throne, or because he will be the real savior in the battle of ice and fire. Considering the Bran issue, probably the second reason ... Otherwise, the biggest twist in the story would have no reason, which is a huge mistake that only a novice writer can make. GRRM is not a novice writer.

Thank you.

You're trying to portray Meereenese slavers as somehow the bearers of an authentic culture, while ignoring the opinions of the slave majority.  There is actually nothing to love or respect about slaver culture.  All of the "cultural" activities of the masters reinforce mastership and subjugation.  Martin may indeed say that the conflict between good and evil lies within, more than between, people.  But, he is not a total moral relativist.  It's a very strange take on the story (although a depressingly commmon one) to view slave masters and slaves as being as good or bad as each other, each with an equally valid point of view. Dany is an invader to a minority of the local population, a liberator to the majority, people who have as much right to call themselves Meereenese as the elite have.  People like the Green Grace and Xaro are not speaking for the author.  They're speaking for a very narrow, selfish, elite.

i've heard the argument so often that the problem with slavery is not that it existed, but that it was ended violently,  rather than peacefully, and I've come to detest it.  Slavery means relentless violence.  Slavery only ended due to armed resistance by slaves, and by governments who were willing to use violence to put a stop to it.

And, I would definitely not view the Ottoman empire (itself a slave-based empire) as any kind of model of good government. 

As for Jon, he  would have broken his vows to fight for Robb, had his friends not tracked him down.  Jon may have placed his duty above his love for Ygritte, but who actually is in the right here?  The Free Folk who are fighting the Others, or the Nights Watch who are allied to Craster? Jon wants revenge on the Boltons and Janos Slynt for the wrongs they committed against his family.  I'm definitely not in the camp that says Janos Slynt was a martyr, or that Jon should be reaching out to the Boltons, but it's plain that a desire for revenge is  one of Jon's motives.  

Jon was a good leader in many ways, but he made mistakes that ultimately got him killed. 

As to Martin's take on Frost's poem, he sees fire as representing warmth, passion, sexual ardour;. Ice as representing hate, revenge, cold inhumanity.  In no sense is he arguing that such things are equally good or bad.

Edited by SeanF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15 March 2021 at 5:57 AM, Daeron the Daring said:

Tell me then, how do you see the end of the story and the fate of these characters?

The most important thing you entirely missed was the parallel between Daenerys and Jon. That both make serious mistakes and both learn how to rule. At the same time, during ADWD. Seriously, how do you imagine the outcome of the books? 

Jon and Dany have a huge amount in common and the parallels between them are plain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SeanF said:

You're trying to portray Meereenese slavers as somehow the bearers of an authentic culture, while ignoring the opinions of the slave majority.  There is actually nothing to love or respect about slaver culture.  All of the "cultural" activities of the masters reinforce mastership and subjugation.  Martin may indeed say that the conflict between good and evil lies within, more than between, people.  But, he is not a total moral relativist.  It's a very strange take on the story (although a depressingly commmon one) to view slave masters and slaves as being as good or bad as each other, each with an equally valid point of view. Dany is an invader to a minority of the local population, a liberator to the majority, people who have as much right to call themselves Meereenese as the elite have.  People like the Green Grace and Xaro are not speaking for the author.  They're speaking for a very narrow, selfish, elite.

i've heard the argument so often that the problem with slavery is not that it existed, but that it was ended violently,  rather than peacefully, and I've come to detest it.  Slavery means relentless violence.  Slavery only ended due to armed resistance by slaves, and by governments who were willing to use violence to put a stop to it.

And, I would definitely not view the Ottoman empire (itself a slave-based empire) as any kind of model of good government. 

Honestly, I'm fully with you. It's tiring how many people view violence as the wrong thing in every situation, but then they fail to see injustice as violence. The same thing happens every time there's a riot or a manifestation or anything like that. That violence is wrong and evil. But hunger, poverty, slavery, torture, rape, and overall injustice, the violence of the status quo, well, that violence is O.K.

In the best case they claim that both are equally bad. And that's just as angering. The slaves don't seem to think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

Honestly, I'm fully with you. It's tiring how many people view violence as the wrong thing in every situation, but then they fail to see injustice as violence. The same thing happens every time there's a riot or a manifestation or anything like that. That violence is wrong and evil. But hunger, poverty, slavery, torture, rape, and overall injustice, the violence of the status quo, well, that violence is O.K.

In the best case they claim that both are equally bad. And that's just as angering. The slaves don't seem to think so.

Violence is not made better by being institutionalised.  It's made worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Violence is not made better by being institutionalised.  It's made worse.

yepp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...