A mirror of the eeesite "A Song of Ice and Fire"

This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / Other Topics / Chaos

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages

Min
User ID: 1446254 Sep 21st 9:36 AM
Chaos... the counterpart of being? The spark that brings being to what it is?

Many fantasy books have the idea of chaos in them. It mostly is the fight between good (order) and bad (chaos). The antagonists fight for power, revenge... or for chaos. And these normaly are the worst. Here, chaos is depicted as the uttermost element of evil.

Apart from what we read in those books, there are various theories about chaos. Even the one that everything was born from chaos in the first time.

The internet is chaos in purity. This board, which we all constantly visit, is, despite some rules, reigned by chaos. Every one can say what he wants, to which topic soever.

What are your opinions? Is chaos good or bad? Or is it beyond a judgement like this? How does the tender balance between chaos and order work? In fantasy literature as well as in other regards.

Is anyone interested in discussing this?

Jeff
User ID: 0227464 Sep 21st 10:06 AM
That's a rather intriguing question.

I would say that the balance between chaos and order should maximize individual liberty. Pure chaos, as I interpret it, places no limits on the actions of individuals. Pure order grants no rights to individuals because all must conform to whatever the "order" is.

I think the proper balance is one that maximizes an individual's right to live as they choose while providing enough order to protect that right. "My right to swing my fist ends at your nose". Order should not be so strong as to be able to compel certain actions. Its function should be to forbid certain actions that affect others.

KAH
User ID: 9209903 Sep 21st 10:47 AM
Chaos has a certain creative value.

'Order' can easily become stagnated tradition, whereas 'chaos' (not in the total sense of the word, obviously) often brings about change and growth. Which can be positive or negative.

To use an analogy; forest fires, is one of nature's own way of renewing itself, giving breathing space and fertile ground for new growth.
And no, I'm not proposing for people to do their own 'renewal' in that respect. :o)

I'm just saying that chaos, within certain limitations, can be positive.

Ser Benjen
User ID: 1195644 Sep 21st 11:15 AM
Very interesting question.

I don't think chaos should be given a label of good or bad, for that matter neither should order.
To establish the polarization of good and bad you are assuming a seperateness between these things, when they are inseperable.

I don't know chaos theory too well so I could be way out in left field here. It has been my feeling that without order one could not define chaos, and vice versa. The universe itself is a cycle of strains of order emerging from chaos and then those instances of order "decaying" into chaos again.

The "evolution" of living beings on this planet could be theorized as being many coincedent strains of order that arose from the seemingly chaotic (and yet, according to physics, orderly) shifting of chemicals, gravity and energy in this area of our galaxy (or maybe a power much greater than we can imagine set the seemingly random motions of the universe into an order that we cannot decipher).

Our human lifespan and perception are far too limited to see the origins of entropy and enthalpy. They are simply the balancing functions that move the universe towards (or away from) the totally static balance.

So my point from way out here in left field is that judging the goodness or badness of chaos is beyond us.

Fantasy authors do well in quantifying the forces or order and chaos into symbols we easily fit into our own cognitive framework. The places they take us to are facinating because of their depth, but are also a comfortable place where readers can transfer there hopes, fears, desires, agression, etc and give them a definable yet seperated form.

Sorry for the rant, I'll put a cork in it now.

P.S. I like what Jeff has to say about "rights" it reminds me of Sartre for some reason.

Min
User ID: 1446254 Sep 21st 11:42 AM
Jeff reminds me of Sartre in many ways than just this one. :-) Ah well.

Thank you for your insights. Rants are not bad when they are isteresting as these ones were.

I have to sadly admid that I perfectly agree with Jeff.

Which means, as a result, that the balance of order and chaos is what is needed. I, too, think that chaos and order are terms beyond the rating of good and bad. But like in many other cases, too much of just one leads to bad _results_. Too much order strangles (creativity, for an example). Too much chaos leads to people harming each other.

But how is this balance to be achieved? Fatasy authors often seem to depict chaos and order as fighting foes. Do they not also need each other? Without chaos, there would be no order. And vice versa.

I mentioned the Internet as a system of chaos (though that term is a paradoxon in itself). Everyone is free to do and to display whatever he wants. Or at least it started this way.
Many amazing new insights resulted from that. Many horrible crimes resulted also, crimes the states try to pursue, but never really achieved (I did a research on children-pornography on the Internet, and what I learned made me doubt the institution of the net itself...)

I have the impression that, taken this board as an example, chaos creates order after a while. Birthes it. This board started with a minimum of rules - the five major threads under which the topics appear. And anyone was free to post opinions as well as new threads. Not only concerning ASoIaF, but also in othert regards, many amazing topics and insights emerged. Like the discussion about religion, or redemption. And somehow, though no one ever forced us to keep up some kind of order, we made some. It was born from an empty space without rules. And we (or most of us) keep to them. Of course, we also transport our own opinions and moral standards in here, too, which basicly goes down to the right of swinging fists ending at the other ones' noses (there are exceptions, but mostly, it is just that).

Err... I lingered. Well, what I thought was - does chaos, such as it is, create order after a while? Or are they both really opposing enemies which fight against each other?

Hm. Even I do not manage to keep all my posts short... :-)

Ser Gary
User ID: 8068153 Sep 21st 1:23 PM
I'm not sure whether chaos is ever able to create order -- maybe it inevitably does, way out there on the infinity spectrum. It's been my personal experience that chaos begets more chaos. There is, I believe, a certain rule of energy that might apply to this -- but don't ask me what it is.

I will say that this is an extremely intelligent topic, Min, and the first five posts did a beautiful job of summarizing this issue -- in textbook form, no less. Congratulations to all of you.

Jeff
User ID: 0227464 Sep 21st 4:03 PM
I think you're thinking of the First Law of Thermodynamics, Ser Gary. As I remember it (and its been a very long time since I took Thermodynamics) all objects tend towards chaos -- the law of entropy. At some point, all motion in the universe will cease, all matter will be reduced to its basic elements, and the universe will assume a uniform temperature. Rather boring, wouldn't you say?

The excitement comes from the movement of order to chaos. Once chaos is achieved, it is even more boring than order.

LindaElane
User ID: 7733333 Sep 22nd 0:50 AM
I am not sure there is really such a thing as chaos. You know there is the saying about a butterfly flapping its wings in Tokyo later being the determining factor for a hurricane in NY...or something like that. At any rate, on the macroscopic level, I think all events have causes. How can it be chaos when the origin of any event could be perfectly explained if only we had infinite knowledge?

I also have the idea that "chaos" theory is pointing out the order in supposed chaos.

Min
User ID: 1446254 Sep 22nd 3:26 AM
We have the same saying here in Germany, LindaElane. Ok, perhaps we started in the middle instead of the very beginning. Let's try this:
What IS chaos?

Min
User ID: 1446254 Sep 22nd 3:28 AM
And as another thought, Gary: Was not the universe born from chaos? Could it be an infinite circle, where chaos birthes order, and this all stumbles back into chaos again?
Which does not answer my previous question, I know.

Keri Stevenson Sep 22nd 6:44 AM
I agree with a lot of what is said here (especially that order and chaos are a balance, should not be assigned the names of good and evil, would stagnate or strangle without each other, etc.). But I wonder...

If this is true, and accepted by most people as true, then where did the tradition (in fantasy books, at least) of naming Order as Good and Chaos as Evil come from? I know the Greeks, at least, thought the world was born from Chaos, and loved Order because they thought it was the only thing that made it possible for human beings to live. Is it drawing on something like that? Or is it just another convenient archetype like the Light/Darkness dichotomy (which I probably didn't spell right :)? Given that a lot of fantasy has been written since the sixties- and I don't know how long chaos theory has been around, but it's been an influence for at least some of those years- I find it interesting that Chaos should still be such a tempting enemy. Light/Darkness I can somewhat understand- fear of the night is almost a human instinct- but Order and Chaos are really abstract ideas.

Thoughts, anyone?

Min
User ID: 1446254 Sep 22nd 8:12 AM
Good question, Keri. I have a guess, though I'm not sure it is right:

Writing a fantasy novel needs creating villains, antagonists. Ok, the writer creates an antagonist. Sooner or later, he will have to explain WHY the evil one is evil. Only the very poorest fantasy novels do not even try to explain that. So why?

I named some of the most popular reasons for evils to be just that above. Hunger for power is one of them. Striving for _something_ more. That need not necessarily be power, it can be money, too, or even knowledge. Like Ilyrio (money) or Littlefinger (power). Or Cersei. Like Prince Regal and his bastard brother Galen in Robin Hobb's Farseers Trilogy. Or like Pryrates in Tad William's M,S&T (who trives for knowledge). But every one of those has their own reasons why they wish to be powerful or rich or whatever. Ok.

Revenge or fear is another point. Some antagonists have experienced something in their past which makes them just the way they are. Like Sandor. Like Tad William's Storm King Ineluki.

And there are those who just wish to destroy.

There are two big difficulties in writing villains. One of them is that all good explanations for a villain to become what he is are used more than thrice already. The other is: Don't explain it - and your character remains flat. Explain it - an some hopelessly harmony-addicts will begin to sympathize (just like me ;-)).

There is something very temptative to the thought of the chaos-searching antagonist. He is unpredictable like a madman. And striving just for chaos explains him, but makes him all the more horrible.

Writing a villain is far more easy than writing a hero. Darkness and light are metaphors you can use, but chaos is _real_. At least in fantasy. :-)

Just as a sidekick: The only one who avoided all this was the master, Tolkien. He hinted, he gave bits and pieces of explanation about his antagonist, but he never fully explained him - without allowing him to grow boring or flat.

Once more, I lingered. Sorry. :-)

Ser Benjen
User ID: 1195644 Sep 22nd 8:37 AM
Chaos of course is simply a word(probably way too small to encompass the concept it is trying to convey), used to describe events, actions and or happenings that do not have an easily predicatable end.

The Kingdoms of Westeros could be said to be in a relatively chaotic state, if your definition of chaos depends on the predicitability (or lack thereof) within a particular system or situation.
If you look at each of the forces or even characters involved with the current conflict in Westeros, each seems to have there own defined goal (whether it is obvious to us or not). But when you look at the way all these forces and characters come together and the way their actions overlap and contradict it seems a very chaotic situation.

I think it has GRRM's goal to show us that Protagonists and antagonists should not be so easily given labels like good and evil or orderly and chaotic. Their actions and intentions fall on both sides of that fence. It is not necessarily the good or evil in a given force or character that will make them victorious but the sum of many qualities much more mundane. Like strength, cunning, will, wealth and chance.

Kevin
User ID: 1766884 Sep 22nd 7:03 PM
Free will - The ultimate chaos or the balance between order and chaos?

Fate - The ultimate order?

That could be an interesting subject for a book. One group has their lives completely ruled by fate and another follows only free will. Which would be good? Which would be evil?

Kevin
User ID: 1766884 Sep 22nd 7:04 PM
Make the book more interesting. Group 1 fate. Group 2 chance. Individual with free will and power to control destiny. Hmmm.

Kevin
User ID: 1766884 Sep 22nd 7:05 PM
Wish I had at least a smidge of writing talent. Grrrrr.

Min
User ID: 1446254 Sep 23rd 3:57 AM
very good, Kevin, Benjen.
GRRM is one of the writers who refuses to categorize his protagonists and antagonists. They are not purely good or bad, and therefor, not purely order and chaos. He has none of the evil people being evil just for the sake of chaos, too - I think he thought that being too easy. Just a guess.

Stannis, though, is the order become flesh. He is not one of the protagonists, as I see it, though he is not really evil, too. Theon, on the other hand, is the most eminent representative of chaos, and he, too, is clearly none of the good guys. Yes, I admid that. ;-)

Choice... a word that should be written in capitals each time it appears. CHOICE. Versus fate, as Kevin clearly pointed out. Is choice really standing for chaos? Or could it not also be the choosing between different rules and _orders_?

I still miss the definition from some of you. What is chaos?

Ser Gary
User ID: 8068153 Sep 23rd 7:28 AM
Simply stated, chaos could be anything that disrupts or changes the natural flow of events. Maybe that's a little too simple though.

Min
User ID: 1446254 Sep 23rd 8:02 AM
But this kind of definition would indeed define chaos as evil, would it not? I am not sure about that, though fantasy often sees it so.

Ser Gary
User ID: 8068153 Sep 23rd 8:07 AM
I think it has more to do with making choices, as opposed to being swept up in them -- I think it was Ser Benjen who might have alluded to that.

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages

Min User ID: 1446254	Sep 21st 9:36 AM Chaos... the counterpart of being? The spark that brings being to what it is? Many fantasy books have the idea of chaos in them. It mostly is the fight between good (order) and bad (chaos). The antagonists fight for power, revenge... or for chaos. And these normaly are the worst. Here, chaos is depicted as the uttermost element of evil. Apart from what we read in those books, there are various theories about chaos. Even the one that everything was born from chaos in the first time. The internet is chaos in purity. This board, which we all constantly visit, is, despite some rules, reigned by chaos. Every one can say what he wants, to which topic soever. What are your opinions? Is chaos good or bad? Or is it beyond a judgement like this? How does the tender balance between chaos and order work? In fantasy literature as well as in other regards. Is anyone interested in discussing this?
Jeff User ID: 0227464	Sep 21st 10:06 AM That's a rather intriguing question. I would say that the balance between chaos and order should maximize individual liberty. Pure chaos, as I interpret it, places no limits on the actions of individuals. Pure order grants no rights to individuals because all must conform to whatever the "order" is. I think the proper balance is one that maximizes an individual's right to live as they choose while providing enough order to protect that right. "My right to swing my fist ends at your nose". Order should not be so strong as to be able to compel certain actions. Its function should be to forbid certain actions that affect others.
KAH User ID: 9209903	Sep 21st 10:47 AM Chaos has a certain creative value. 'Order' can easily become stagnated tradition, whereas 'chaos' (not in the total sense of the word, obviously) often brings about change and growth. Which can be positive or negative. To use an analogy; forest fires, is one of nature's own way of renewing itself, giving breathing space and fertile ground for new growth. And no, I'm not proposing for people to do their own 'renewal' in that respect. :o) I'm just saying that chaos, within certain limitations, can be positive.
Ser Benjen User ID: 1195644	Sep 21st 11:15 AM Very interesting question. I don't think chaos should be given a label of good or bad, for that matter neither should order. To establish the polarization of good and bad you are assuming a seperateness between these things, when they are inseperable. I don't know chaos theory too well so I could be way out in left field here. It has been my feeling that without order one could not define chaos, and vice versa. The universe itself is a cycle of strains of order emerging from chaos and then those instances of order "decaying" into chaos again. The "evolution" of living beings on this planet could be theorized as being many coincedent strains of order that arose from the seemingly chaotic (and yet, according to physics, orderly) shifting of chemicals, gravity and energy in this area of our galaxy (or maybe a power much greater than we can imagine set the seemingly random motions of the universe into an order that we cannot decipher). Our human lifespan and perception are far too limited to see the origins of entropy and enthalpy. They are simply the balancing functions that move the universe towards (or away from) the totally static balance. So my point from way out here in left field is that judging the goodness or badness of chaos is beyond us. Fantasy authors do well in quantifying the forces or order and chaos into symbols we easily fit into our own cognitive framework. The places they take us to are facinating because of their depth, but are also a comfortable place where readers can transfer there hopes, fears, desires, agression, etc and give them a definable yet seperated form. Sorry for the rant, I'll put a cork in it now. P.S. I like what Jeff has to say about "rights" it reminds me of Sartre for some reason.
Min User ID: 1446254	Sep 21st 11:42 AM Jeff reminds me of Sartre in many ways than just this one. :-) Ah well. Thank you for your insights. Rants are not bad when they are isteresting as these ones were. I have to sadly admid that I perfectly agree with Jeff. Which means, as a result, that the balance of order and chaos is what is needed. I, too, think that chaos and order are terms beyond the rating of good and bad. But like in many other cases, too much of just one leads to bad _results_. Too much order strangles (creativity, for an example). Too much chaos leads to people harming each other. But how is this balance to be achieved? Fatasy authors often seem to depict chaos and order as fighting foes. Do they not also need each other? Without chaos, there would be no order. And vice versa. I mentioned the Internet as a system of chaos (though that term is a paradoxon in itself). Everyone is free to do and to display whatever he wants. Or at least it started this way. Many amazing new insights resulted from that. Many horrible crimes resulted also, crimes the states try to pursue, but never really achieved (I did a research on children-pornography on the Internet, and what I learned made me doubt the institution of the net itself...) I have the impression that, taken this board as an example, chaos creates order after a while. Birthes it. This board started with a minimum of rules - the five major threads under which the topics appear. And anyone was free to post opinions as well as new threads. Not only concerning ASoIaF, but also in othert regards, many amazing topics and insights emerged. Like the discussion about religion, or redemption. And somehow, though no one ever forced us to keep up some kind of order, we made some. It was born from an empty space without rules. And we (or most of us) keep to them. Of course, we also transport our own opinions and moral standards in here, too, which basicly goes down to the right of swinging fists ending at the other ones' noses (there are exceptions, but mostly, it is just that). Err... I lingered. Well, what I thought was - does chaos, such as it is, create order after a while? Or are they both really opposing enemies which fight against each other? Hm. Even I do not manage to keep all my posts short... :-)
Ser Gary User ID: 8068153	Sep 21st 1:23 PM I'm not sure whether chaos is ever able to create order -- maybe it inevitably does, way out there on the infinity spectrum. It's been my personal experience that chaos begets more chaos. There is, I believe, a certain rule of energy that might apply to this -- but don't ask me what it is. I will say that this is an extremely intelligent topic, Min, and the first five posts did a beautiful job of summarizing this issue -- in textbook form, no less. Congratulations to all of you.
Jeff User ID: 0227464	Sep 21st 4:03 PM I think you're thinking of the First Law of Thermodynamics, Ser Gary. As I remember it (and its been a very long time since I took Thermodynamics) all objects tend towards chaos -- the law of entropy. At some point, all motion in the universe will cease, all matter will be reduced to its basic elements, and the universe will assume a uniform temperature. Rather boring, wouldn't you say? The excitement comes from the movement of order to chaos. Once chaos is achieved, it is even more boring than order.
LindaElane User ID: 7733333	Sep 22nd 0:50 AM I am not sure there is really such a thing as chaos. You know there is the saying about a butterfly flapping its wings in Tokyo later being the determining factor for a hurricane in NY...or something like that. At any rate, on the macroscopic level, I think all events have causes. How can it be chaos when the origin of any event could be perfectly explained if only we had infinite knowledge? I also have the idea that "chaos" theory is pointing out the order in supposed chaos.
Min User ID: 1446254	Sep 22nd 3:26 AM We have the same saying here in Germany, LindaElane. Ok, perhaps we started in the middle instead of the very beginning. Let's try this: What IS chaos?
Min User ID: 1446254	Sep 22nd 3:28 AM And as another thought, Gary: Was not the universe born from chaos? Could it be an infinite circle, where chaos birthes order, and this all stumbles back into chaos again? Which does not answer my previous question, I know.
Keri Stevenson	Sep 22nd 6:44 AM I agree with a lot of what is said here (especially that order and chaos are a balance, should not be assigned the names of good and evil, would stagnate or strangle without each other, etc.). But I wonder... If this is true, and accepted by most people as true, then where did the tradition (in fantasy books, at least) of naming Order as Good and Chaos as Evil come from? I know the Greeks, at least, thought the world was born from Chaos, and loved Order because they thought it was the only thing that made it possible for human beings to live. Is it drawing on something like that? Or is it just another convenient archetype like the Light/Darkness dichotomy (which I probably didn't spell right :)? Given that a lot of fantasy has been written since the sixties- and I don't know how long chaos theory has been around, but it's been an influence for at least some of those years- I find it interesting that Chaos should still be such a tempting enemy. Light/Darkness I can somewhat understand- fear of the night is almost a human instinct- but Order and Chaos are really abstract ideas. Thoughts, anyone?
Min User ID: 1446254	Sep 22nd 8:12 AM Good question, Keri. I have a guess, though I'm not sure it is right: Writing a fantasy novel needs creating villains, antagonists. Ok, the writer creates an antagonist. Sooner or later, he will have to explain WHY the evil one is evil. Only the very poorest fantasy novels do not even try to explain that. So why? I named some of the most popular reasons for evils to be just that above. Hunger for power is one of them. Striving for _something_ more. That need not necessarily be power, it can be money, too, or even knowledge. Like Ilyrio (money) or Littlefinger (power). Or Cersei. Like Prince Regal and his bastard brother Galen in Robin Hobb's Farseers Trilogy. Or like Pryrates in Tad William's M,S&T (who trives for knowledge). But every one of those has their own reasons why they wish to be powerful or rich or whatever. Ok. Revenge or fear is another point. Some antagonists have experienced something in their past which makes them just the way they are. Like Sandor. Like Tad William's Storm King Ineluki. And there are those who just wish to destroy. There are two big difficulties in writing villains. One of them is that all good explanations for a villain to become what he is are used more than thrice already. The other is: Don't explain it - and your character remains flat. Explain it - an some hopelessly harmony-addicts will begin to sympathize (just like me ;-)). There is something very temptative to the thought of the chaos-searching antagonist. He is unpredictable like a madman. And striving just for chaos explains him, but makes him all the more horrible. Writing a villain is far more easy than writing a hero. Darkness and light are metaphors you can use, but chaos is _real_. At least in fantasy. :-) Just as a sidekick: The only one who avoided all this was the master, Tolkien. He hinted, he gave bits and pieces of explanation about his antagonist, but he never fully explained him - without allowing him to grow boring or flat. Once more, I lingered. Sorry. :-)
Ser Benjen User ID: 1195644	Sep 22nd 8:37 AM Chaos of course is simply a word(probably way too small to encompass the concept it is trying to convey), used to describe events, actions and or happenings that do not have an easily predicatable end. The Kingdoms of Westeros could be said to be in a relatively chaotic state, if your definition of chaos depends on the predicitability (or lack thereof) within a particular system or situation. If you look at each of the forces or even characters involved with the current conflict in Westeros, each seems to have there own defined goal (whether it is obvious to us or not). But when you look at the way all these forces and characters come together and the way their actions overlap and contradict it seems a very chaotic situation. I think it has GRRM's goal to show us that Protagonists and antagonists should not be so easily given labels like good and evil or orderly and chaotic. Their actions and intentions fall on both sides of that fence. It is not necessarily the good or evil in a given force or character that will make them victorious but the sum of many qualities much more mundane. Like strength, cunning, will, wealth and chance.
Kevin User ID: 1766884	Sep 22nd 7:03 PM Free will - The ultimate chaos or the balance between order and chaos? Fate - The ultimate order? That could be an interesting subject for a book. One group has their lives completely ruled by fate and another follows only free will. Which would be good? Which would be evil?
Kevin User ID: 1766884	Sep 22nd 7:04 PM Make the book more interesting. Group 1 fate. Group 2 chance. Individual with free will and power to control destiny. Hmmm.
Kevin User ID: 1766884	Sep 22nd 7:05 PM Wish I had at least a smidge of writing talent. Grrrrr.
Min User ID: 1446254	Sep 23rd 3:57 AM very good, Kevin, Benjen. GRRM is one of the writers who refuses to categorize his protagonists and antagonists. They are not purely good or bad, and therefor, not purely order and chaos. He has none of the evil people being evil just for the sake of chaos, too - I think he thought that being too easy. Just a guess. Stannis, though, is the order become flesh. He is not one of the protagonists, as I see it, though he is not really evil, too. Theon, on the other hand, is the most eminent representative of chaos, and he, too, is clearly none of the good guys. Yes, I admid that. ;-) Choice... a word that should be written in capitals each time it appears. CHOICE. Versus fate, as Kevin clearly pointed out. Is choice really standing for chaos? Or could it not also be the choosing between different rules and _orders_? I still miss the definition from some of you. What is chaos?
Ser Gary User ID: 8068153	Sep 23rd 7:28 AM Simply stated, chaos could be anything that disrupts or changes the natural flow of events. Maybe that's a little too simple though.
Min User ID: 1446254	Sep 23rd 8:02 AM But this kind of definition would indeed define chaos as evil, would it not? I am not sure about that, though fantasy often sees it so.
Ser Gary User ID: 8068153	Sep 23rd 8:07 AM I think it has more to do with making choices, as opposed to being swept up in them -- I think it was Ser Benjen who might have alluded to that.