Why the Fables of the Seven Don't Tell About Others?

[sweetsunray]

42 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

I've read quite a bit of his stuff.  I think maybe you're remembering only what you want to remember. 

Nah. I think you are confusing George writing the redeeming ability of an individual to realize their religion is wrong (as George himself once did IRL) with George believing a christian like religion itself is a good thing (what you seem to believe, but George does not). 

42 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

Yes, there is hostility, but there is nuance as well.  In Tuf Voyaging, Tolly Mune, for instance, is quite eloquent in her defense of her people, and the positive aspects of their religion and culture (a sort of stand-in for Catholicism) and its respect for human life; and to at least some extent, I think she speaks for GRRM. 

Tolly Mune who wakes up to the hypocrisy and lies of her fanatical society who refuse to use birth control to stave off assured famine, and finally betrays her people and helps Tuf to leave with his ship, once she discovers that despite Tuf's help to ward off the famine her people still plot to steal the ship for their own? That Tolly Mune?

Yes, there is zealotry and George writes it to be wrong, sometimes allowing for an individual raised in it to open their eyes to the wrongness of it

42 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

In The Armageddon Rag, the protagonist saves himself, and maybe the world, by falling back to a more traditional view of ethics, and refuses to commit a murder that he had been led to believe (by dubious visions) would supposedly forestall an apocalyptic nightmare.

The protagonist who is not a religious character?

For anyone else recommended reading on George and his writing of christian like religions

• And Death his Legacy
• A Song for Lya
• And Seven Times Never Kill Man
• The Way of the Cross and Dragon

[sweetsunray]

41 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

The brindled folk of Sothyros were called half-men.  Perhaps they were half-man, half "ghoul'.

Or perhaps the "ghouls" are the brindled men themselves, so called for cannibalistic practices and reputed supernatural powers.

Fine by me, though unlikely.

Anyway, wighted brindled men or sorcerous cannibalistic brindled men together with spotted spiders had Princess Nymeria's entire settlement at Yeen disappear overnight, which is the elephant in the room you tried to work around.

[Gilbert Green]

26 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Anyway, wighted brindled men or sorcerous cannibalistic brindled men together with spotted spiders had Princess Nymeria's entire settlement at Yeen disappear overnight, which is the elephant in the room you tried to work around.

What a strange remark.  Obviously something happened and we don't know what.  Doesn't mean it was zombies.  Does not mean it was elephants either. 

[Gilbert Green]

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

The protagonist who is not a religious character?

Rather like Stannis in that respect, I guess, and facing a similar moral dilemma.  In the end, the protagonist makes what GRRM evidently considers to be the morally right choice.  It is unclear if Stannis will, but he yet may.

But Stannis has an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other.  Davos and Melisandre.  Both characters are religious.  But I think GRRM is much more on Davos' side, and much less on Mel's side.

I think GRRM has enough of an appreciation of history that he is able to step outside current culture wars when he writes about characters in a quasi-medieval setting.  I therefore don't think he is on an "all religion is bad" crusade.  But I guess we will never resolve this dispute, so feel free to disagree.

[kissdbyfire]

It’s not ‘all religion is bad’ but rather any religious zealotry is bad. 

[Gilbert Green]

6 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

It’s not ‘all religion is bad’ but rather any religious zealotry is bad. 

What does that even mean, though?  Davos is not entirely devoid of zeal.  Neither is Septon Meribald.  Neither is the Elder Brother. 

[Craving Peaches]

13 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

What does that even mean, though?  Davos is not entirely devoid of zeal.  Neither is Septon Meribald.  Neither is the Elder Brother. 

Perhaps 'exploitation' of religious zeal to the detriment of other humans?

[Phylum of Alexandria]

3 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

But I am with those who has not seen any confirmation or outright example that the First Men (or the CotF) practice human sacrifice. Sure, I see the suggestion of it and the framing of it, but any form of sacrifice claimed to have been committed was always one of committing justice.

Child sacrifice has been brought up in TWOIAF relating to the Hammer of the Waters, but I concede that the deep past is murky, and there's a lot we don't know. Certainly executing criminals is not quite as bad as more or less random murders, but I would not be surprised if there are darker undercurrents to this blood magic. I don't think GRRM will depict it as being mostly benevolent. Maybe in some instances, but I doubt all.

[sweetsunray]

13 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Child sacrifice has been brought up in TWOIAF relating to the Hammer of the Waters,

Which is claimed by a maester who's alligned with the Faith, and the Hammer of the Waters is a legend convulated by Andal tampering of history in order to rationalize genocide.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

Just now, sweetsunray said:

Which is claimed by a maester who's alligned with the Faith, and the Hammer of the Waters is a legend convulated by Andal tampering of history in order to rationalize genocide.

Sure. I'm definitely not going to side with the Faith and their biases. But I also don't think GRRM will sugarcoat the moral implications of blood sacrifice. If anything, executing criminals at trees is a remnant of an older practice.

Perhaps it means something different when the CotF greenseers do it, since they are a psychic collective with a viable afterlife. But otherwise I am dubious.

[sweetsunray]

50 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

I think GRRM has enough of an appreciation of history that he is able to step outside current culture wars when he writes about characters in a quasi-medieval setting.  I therefore don't think he is on an "all religion is bad" crusade.  But I guess we will never resolve this dispute, so feel free to disagree.

Social criticism against religious zealotry is not only something of the current culture wars. It's been around since the enlightenment (several centuries), and yes George has incorporated it in his writing, to anyone's little surprise, since he's a hippie of the 60s (as you would know from the Armaggeddon Rag).

Also straw man argument - I did not say George is on a "all religion is bad" crusade.

[sweetsunray]

3 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

If anything, executing criminals at trees is a remnant of an older practice.

Which is the biased assumption. That the older practice was human sacrifice. It may have always been executing criminals is my point.

I agree though that George will not sugarcoat actual blood sacrifice, especially where someone of power sacrifices another person's life for their own imagined or real personal benefit. He does however side with those who only welcome voluntary self-sacrifice.

[sweetsunray]

1 hour ago, Gilbert Green said:

What a strange remark.  Obviously something happened and we don't know what.  Doesn't mean it was zombies.  Does not mean it was elephants either. 

And you tried to criticize my reading comprehension?

No it's not a strange remark: it makes the whole context, and why we should not dismiss the mention of ghouls alongside spotted spiders like some indoctrinated maester of the Citadel who claims Others, ice spiders and wights are merely grumkins tales.

[kissdbyfire]

48 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

What does that even mean, though?  Davos is not entirely devoid of zeal.  Neither is Septon Meribald.  Neither is the Elder Brother. 

Huh? Zeal and zealotry are different things. One can make the argument that Davos has great fervour for his faith - and I wouldn’t go that far btw - also septon Meribald is clearly a man of deep faith, and neither is a zealot.

[Gilbert Green]

1 minute ago, sweetsunray said:

And you tried to criticize my reading comprehension?

No it's not a strange remark: it makes the whole context, and why we should not dismiss the mention of ghouls alongside spotted spiders like some indoctrinated maester of the Citadel who claims Others, ice spiders and wights are merely grumkins tales.

I never dismissed the concept of ghouls.  I tried to point out that they were not necessarily zombies, and argued that they were probably not zombies.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

11 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Which is the biased assumption. That the older practice was human sacrifice. It may have always been executing criminals is my point.

I agree though that George will not sugarcoat actual blood sacrifice, especially where someone of power sacrifices another person's life for their own imagined or real personal benefit. He does however side with those who only welcome voluntary self-sacrifice.

I fully concede that neither of us know for sure, and we both get to choose our preferred takes until more is known. My reason for thinking that human sacrifice is the older practice is two things: 1) we have seen instances elsewhere of old traditions and myths that reflect actual magic. Sending ravens is an example, as is the kiss of fire. It was seen as simply tradition, but there is a magical root to it. 2) We already know that the weirwoods drink blood and slowly drain life energies from the greenseers who sit upon them. That's verified blood magic, and as I said, GRRM won't sugarcoat the morality of blood magic. So, let's say that in the event that they always did only execute criminals, then I think that GRRM will make us feel the moral horror of even that. He will make clear the costs of this power, whatever details eventually do come to light.

[The Fattest Leech]

1 hour ago, Gilbert Green said:

Rather like Stannis in that respect, I guess, and facing a similar moral dilemma.  In the end, the protagonist makes what GRRM evidently considers to be the morally right choice.  It is unclear if Stannis will, but he yet may.

But Stannis has an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other.  Davos and Melisandre.  Both characters are religious.  But I think GRRM is much more on Davos' side, and much less on Mel's side.

I think GRRM has enough of an appreciation of history that he is able to step outside current culture wars when he writes about characters in a quasi-medieval setting.  I therefore don't think he is on an "all religion is bad" crusade.  But I guess we will never resolve this dispute, so feel free to disagree.

GRRM has been writing and publishing stories for more years than many current readers have been alive. He has at least 72 stories out there published (fully outside of anything ASOIAF related) and a very common theme running through his stories is the zealotry of religion. Religion he doesn't have an "issue" with, but rather the zealous practice of such beliefs and how it "consumes" those who are overtaken with it.

 

It is part of HIS history.

 

Melisandre is what is known in Martinworld as a "meathouse girl". She is powered by the far right red/fire side.

[Corvo the Crow]

Just now, The Fattest Leech said:

GRRM has been writing and publishing stories for more years than many current readers have been alive. He has at least 72 stories out there published (fully outside of anything ASOIAF related) and a very common theme running through his stories is the zealotry of religion. Religion he doesn't have an "issue" with, but rather the zealous practice of such beliefs and how it "consumes" those who are overtaken with it.

 

It is part of HIS history.

 

Melsisandre is what is known in Martinworld as a "meathouse girl". She is powered by the far right red/fire side.

Wow! Leech is back!

[Phylum of Alexandria]

4 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Huh? Zeal and zealotry are different things. One can make the argument that Davos has great fervour for his faith - and I wouldn’t go that far btw - also septon Meribald is clearly a man of deep faith, and neither is a zealot.

Davos is generally not a religious zealot. However, he has experienced moments of religious zeal, after surviving the Battle on the Blackwater. Notably, that zeal led him to try to murder Melisandre for something she took no part in. I don't think GRRM likes Melisandre's zealotry, but he doesn't paint Davos in the best light here either.

[Gilbert Green]

3 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Huh? Zeal and zealotry are different things. One can make the argument that Davos has great fervour for his faith - and I wouldn’t go that far btw - also septon Meribald is clearly a man of deep faith, and neither is a zealot.

I'm not sure what the fine distinction is between zeal and zealotry.  Obviously they are related concepts.  All I ever tried to say is that GRRM's portrayal of religion is not without nuance.

Sure, relgiion is good when it is good and bad when it is bad.  But saying that zeal can be good and that "zealotry" is by definition bad does not really tell me anything.