The Jon Snow ReRead Project! Part 4! (FFC-DwD)

[Ibbison from Ibben]

Paper Waver - I will address the series of small quotes first, since the quote function doesn't reproduce them.

When Slynt appears before the Small Council in aGoT, he is very deferential. Established authority figures are in power, and he wants to keep his job. When he meets with Tyrion in aCoK, Tyrion is new on the job. Slynt tries to bully him, although in theory Tyrion outranks him. Slynt fails. When Slynt reaches Castle Black, the chain of command has been shattered. Slynt jumps in and tries to assume control, even though he has no real authority to do so. When Stannis, an established authority figure, shows up, Slynt egregiously sucks up to him. He fails. When Jon is elected LCNW, Slynt defies the new commander. See the pattern? He has a history of trying to seize power in unsettled conditions by bluster, claiming people should do his bidding because of his powerful friends.

The statement of Slynt's that lacks credibility is his claim that he's being sent off to freeze at Greyguard. If he has enough brains to put his smallclothes on correctly, he knows this isn't true. And I do not remember any rumors amongst the brothers of the Watch that Jon was intentionally sending Slynt to his death by ordering him to Greyguard. It's a flat out false claim. Everything else Slynt says is simple defiance, claiming he doesn't have to follow the LC's orders if he doesn't want to.

So an irrational belief is not justified, is this what you mean?

Exactly. If someone were to claim our world is flat, given the available evidence, that claim is unjustified. Janos Slynt's claim that he is in danger of freezing to death at Greyguard is similarly unjustified. Jon tells Slynt his first task will to be to clear back the forest. That act would produce wood. Which could be burned. To create heat. Rendering freezing to death unlikely.

Do you suggest he does not have the right to be irrational?

No. He has that right. He just doesn't have a right to be taken seriously if he is.

Jon’s attack on Thorne was irrational (even stupid). Mormont specifically told him to not do anything stupid after giving him the bad news. And Jon fell to the first taunt of Thorne. Even if we assume that Slynt was acting irrationally, Jon could have shown him some empathy he was given after messing up in AGoT.

Thorne had been provoking Jon since Jon first arrived at the Wall. Jon's attempt to attack Thorne did not threaten the entire command structure of the NW. Slynt's claim that the properly elected LCNW had no right to give him orders threatened to undermine the entire Watch. It was not only an act of defiance against Jon, it was an act of defiance against every NW brother who recognized the existence of the chain of command and was willing to obey it. The two situations are not comparable.

I call it a double standard if we at least not try to show some empathy for Slynt’s disobedience compared to Jon in AGoT. Plus, many posters recently noted how the builders were working really hard and complaining about it, that Jon should pay attention to it and it is not a sign of good leadership. Jon was well aware of the difficulties of Greyguard mission as he talked with Slynt. Why Slynt’s case is handled differently than the builders?

Because the builders kept building. Slynt refused to go. And although the builders were griping, the task they were assigned was vital. In a military unit like the NW, mission comes first. Jon's #1 priority is to Defend The Wall, not keep builders happy.

Plus, I don’t agree with Slynt being irrational in this case at all. Since he does not have the access to Jon’s POV as we do, he has to decide according to what he suspects. Slynt has every reason to suspect Jon because he himself plotted against him and openly tried to kill him. Even a fool like him can expect retribution from Jon in this case. So his suspicion of Jon in this order is both rational and justified for me.

I don't think he's irrational, either. I included the possibility to cover all the cases. But the only thing he accuses Jon of is sending him off to freeze, which obviously isn't going to happen. Therefore, he's not telling the truth about that. And by the way, Jon Snow, the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, does in fact have the right to send Slynt away to die, and Slynt has no right to argue. When Slynt assumed command and sent Jon on a very dangerous mission, Jon obeyed to the best of his ability.

“I will not hang him,” said Jon. “Bring him here.”
“Oh, Seven save us,” he heard Bowen Marsh cry out.

I read this as a cry of relief, thinking that Jon gave up this madness and came to his senses. Slynt thought the same at this point, i.e. he was to be spared.

If Bowen meant to cry in relief, he would have been more likely to say, "Seven be praised!", indicating that he approved of the action - stopping the hanging - that Jon had taken. "Seven save us!" would seem to indicate that Marsh didn't approve of stopping the hanging.

[Ragnorak]

Almost caught up now, weeh! I'll necro some stuff from seven pages back because I've been going through the ASOS/AFFC up to ADWD chapters in one "sitting" as it where and one little thing kept niggling in the back of my mind.

Lummel will probably frown and think I am doing some Waiting for Godot to Show Up in the Text :P (and maybe that is true).

Nice to you posting again Lyanna! Welcome back.

It is interesting to notice that what Jon had in mind as revenge (by his thoughts in their initial meeting) is identical to what he actually did as justice...

I believe that there is a serious internal flaw in the First Men idea of justice (per Ned's reasoning), that occurs when the person who passes the sentence and swings the sword happens to be one who has been wronged. In this case, justice and vengeance overlap and create a grey area.

Slynt's case can raise a lot of questions about it.

I agree with Ibbison that Jon concsiously tried, and managed, to distance himself from Jon the person when passing the sentence. The text is clear about this. It was the decision of Jon the Lord Commander. But I'm not really certain which Jon swung the sword. The text leaves this open to readers' personal interpretations. I'm inclined to believe that it was Jon with all his identities, Jon the Lord Commander and Jon Ned's son and Jon who Slynt had tried to have him killed.

{ In that case, I could see Jon paying attention to Stannis reaction as questioning himself and seeking a way to verify his own motives by looking at the reaction of a third party (plus, my father always said Stannis is a just man). He wanted to confirm from an external source that what he did was indeed justice. }

<snip>

Technically all justice flows from the king. It is the King's justice and when war breaks out among lords they are breaking the King's Peace. That the offended party is the judge and jury is sort of the underlying postulate for the authority to dispense justice in this system. The First Men justice idea extends judge and jury to include executioner under the premise that having to swing the sword yourself makes it more personal not less and, in theory, it is this same personal aspect that is supposed to yield or more just or moderated result. It plays into the clean vs. bloody hands theme. All systems require people of integrity with good character to succeed. No system can counteract corrupt people operating it.

Your sentiments strike me as a perfectly reasonable reaction given modern systems of justice and the great lengths they go to in order to try and ensure impartiality. In Westeros everything is personal. Politics and family are the same entity. The premise inherent in the system is that there is never any impartiality in justice which naturally poses the question you ask about to what extent one can separate the offended aspects of oneself from one's duty. The First Men ritual is one designed to accomplish this. It seems to clearly do so better than a headsman, but beyond that is open for discussion.

While this comes up thematically, I find myself wondering if there isn't something different being raised with Jon's story. Justice with Slynt should have been carried out long ago. Robert should have killed him for the corruption charges Stannis clues us in about. Tyrion should have killed him for Barra and for Ned. When those who hold the power to dispense justice fail, the result is that people must make their own justice or suffer injustice. We see that repeatedly with glimpses of armed smallfolk, the sparrows, and the Brotherhood without Banners. Gilly comes to Jon for justice and protection. Alys will come to him for justice and protection too. With Jon I see a pattern of the problems of failed justice falling in his lap. Even the political tightrope he has to walk with the Watch is a matter of Kings failing in their duties and the responsibility to deal with that failure falls into Jon's lap.

Jon gets justice for the direwolf pups, justice for the Stark born a girl who wants to play with swords, justice for Sam whose mentor Thorne sees no use for him. There's an early pattern that evolves as he does. My suspicion is that this fits with the entire "king" theme where Jon starts acting like the de facto "true king" without the official title-- at least as it applies to Jon's arc even though all the justice questions you ask are clearly posed by the author.

I should have Jon III posted later tonight or tomorrow morning.

[Ragnorak]

Jon III (ADwD)

Summary

Our chapter opens with "Mance" being brought out bound in ropes for his execution. The noose implies hanging but the wooden cage conveys a different sort of death. The horn and Mance are burned in quite a theatrical display juxtaposed with Stannis and his rather blunt black and white words. Jan has a lengthy exchange with Bowen about the future of the Wall and the present perceptions of the men. Jon returns to his side of the Wall anxious for company but realizes he can't dine with his brothers as he did of old. Instead he visits Clydas and shares some hot spiced wine and speaks of the Lightbringer and the Jade Compendium that Aemon had left for him. He returns to his quarters to work and sends those from his graduating class away from Castle Black in response to requests for more men from Eastwatch and Shadowtower both emphasizing and making a reality of Jon's lonely resignation that this is his fate until the end of his days.

Observations

• A mummer's show of power with shadows on the Wall.
• Stannis and his dry blunt style make quite the contrast with the drama and showmanship that Mel puts on here. It is like a grunt in response to a Shakespearean soliloquy with a pyrotechnics display in the background.

He is stone and she is flame.
Her voice made Jon Snow think of anise and nutmeg and cloves.
I will brook no further attacks upon my Wall.

• Lots and lots of colors surrounding the fire imagery. Symbolism? Clues? The horn burned green--wildfire not magic?
• Shooting Mance is an odd sort of defiance. Jon argued that he live so he's bowing to Stannis' will here.
• Some lengthy descriptions of other scenes that offer metaphorical potential too
• Val crowned in bronze
• The Dornishman's Wife
• They could have let him keep his cloak
• Jon read the Jade Compendium. A little more information trickle.
• You must choose. Mel and Stannis offer the free folk choices. We have a foundation here for comparing Jon's later apple or onion choice to these same people.
• A lord may love the men that he commands, he could hear his lord father saying, but he cannot be a friend to them. One day he may need to sit in judgment on them, or send them forth to die.

Analysis

Doubts, isolation, and the haunting weight of decisions yet to come to fruition fill the chapter. There's an identity undertone that matches the doubt and indecision. Decisions are still made and roles are still played despite all the uncertainties.

Chapter Framing

And even the lie was… not without honor.

The chapter falls between Davos being spared on the Sisters and Dany awakening to learn of more murders in the night. They strike me as framing the Mance/Rattleshirt lie in that they both deal with morality based choices and whether they stay in the shadows or get dragged into the light. Much can also be made of the public/private perceptions of mercy and public/private adherence to or defiance of the law. We also have some of Ned's backstory and more rumors of Jon in Davos as well as onion soup to recall our beloved lowborn smuggler turned knight then lord than Hand.

Bowen Marsh

The exchange is amiable. Jon Snow has emotional clarity, but Lord Snow is undecided. Bowen Marsh is certain and also very wrong.

Marsh starts off expressing shock that the enemy they have long fought is now being offered sanctuary and membership in the realm. It is a common reaction to peace after war but also an untenable one if there is ever to be a peace as well as an attitude that can guarantee the war it predicts if it dictates the peace.

Bowen: “These wildlings … do you think they will keep faith, my lord?”

Jon: “Some will. Not all. We have our cowards and our knaves, our weaklings and our fools, as do they.”

Bowen: “Our vows … we are sworn to protect the realm …”
Jon: “Once the free folk are settled in the Gift, they will become part of the realm,” Jon pointed out.

Note that Jon has not yet had his "realms of men" epiphany, yet clearly sees that once part of the Seven Kingdoms these Wildlings are equally entitled to the protections of his oath. Marsh still sees them as the enemy and it is doubtful he sees his oath applying equally to these Wildlings as to the current residents of Westeros.

Jon: "We have seen the face of our real foe, a dead white face with bright blue eyes. The free folk have seen that face as well. Stannis is not wrong in this. We must make common cause with the wildlings.”

Bowen: “Common cause against a common foe, I could agree with that, but that does not mean we should allow tens of thousands of half-starved savages through the Wall. Let them return to their villages and fight the Others there, whilst we seal the gates. It will not be difficult, Othell tells me. We need only fill the tunnels with chunks of stone and pour water through the murder holes. The Wall does the rest. The cold, the weight … in a moon’s turn, it will be as if no gate had ever been. Any foe would need to hack his way through.”

Marsh says he could agree with making "common cause" but does he? He proposes sealing the gates and sending the Wildlings back to their villages. That was the old status quo. Where is the common cause in his plan? That's leaving them as cannon fodder. The only common cause would be coincidental from their own self defense against the Others. We, and they, already know from Mance's interrogation that the Wildlings tried and failed to fight. His sealing the gates idea is to prevent the Wildling foe from entering and not the common foe they both face.

Jon: “Or climb.”
Bowen: “Unlikely. These are not raiders, out to steal a wife and some plunder. Tormund will have old women with him, children, herds of sheep and goats, even mammoths. He needs a gate, and only three of those remain.

Jon just climbed the Wall with a force of Wildlings. Jon just recalled Redbeard's raid last chapter which was launched by climbing the Wall. Giant just asked Jon last chapter what he should do if Wildlings climbed the Wall. The evidence is that climbing is in fact a real threat.

“We can watch, m’lord, but if enough climbers gain the top o’ the Wall, thirty men won’t be enough to throw them off.”

If the climbers reached the top of the Wall undetected, however, everything changed. Given time, they could carve out a toehold for themselves up there, throwing up ramparts of their own and dropping ropes and ladders for thousands more to clamber over after them. That was how Raymun Redbeard had done it,

The length of the Wall is its weakness and the Watch doesn't have the men to patrol the whole length. While Jon agrees with Marsh about the defensibility of the Wall given its height, the recent past of the Wildling raid on Castle Black and his own wild goose chase at Wildling feints seems to have escaped Marsh. Of note is also the fact that Marsh is preaching "the high ground" here, but abandoned the high ground to attack the Wildlings on level ground when he was actually in charge.

The conversation drifts to Jon's public perception and the issue of his seeming to close to Stannis. Ironically, even if this is as true as Marsh claims, Jon just took a great step to dispel that notion by choosing to shoot Mance with arrows to grant him a merciful death. More enlightening is the inherent meaning in Bowen's own words:

“Lord Stannis helped us when we needed help,” Marsh said doggedly, “but he is still a rebel, and his cause is doomed. As doomed as we’ll be if the Iron Throne marks us down as traitors. We must be certain that we do not choose the losing side.”

This isn't a complaint about failing to remain neutral or "taking part." Calling Stannis a rebel is "taking part" and siding with the Lannister claimant. Marsh is advocating choosing sides and thinks Jon is appearing to chose the wrong one. I don't think Marsh realizes this. He sees the Lannister victory as such a certain thing that his loyalty to their king is following his oath rather than picking sides-- or at least that's my reading of it. Still, the hypocrisy is clear regardless of the self-awareness of it on Bowen's part and becomes even more clear as they discuss the consequences of Tywin's death. The recent and historical military evidence indicate that Marsh is wrong on sealing the Wall. His own contradictory words indicate that he is wrong about being faithful to the oath. Despite that he comes off as having reasonable concerns that also address the primary concerns Jon has too.

Jon's final response is also worth noting:

Thank you for your counsel. I promise you, I will think on all you’ve said.

This encourages further open expression and I think also echoes Jon's own current indecision about a proper course.

Val

Val gets mentioned a good deal in Jon's thoughts. I think there is a tremendous amount of identification with her. Her loneliness mirrors Jon, her desire to escape mirrors Jon's.

Jon watched unblinking. He dare not appear squeamish before his brothers.

Val stood on the platform as still as if she had been carved of salt. She will not weep nor look away.

Jon's filled with doubts about his decisions as LC and the fixation on Val seems to fall in with those. He notes her beauty and compares her with Ygritte in his thoughts. I suspect, like last chapter with where Sam had noticed his desire for Stannis to win that Jon wouldn't acknowledge in his own thoughts, he is not fully acknowledging some thoughts about Val here either.

Ghost

Jon balks at the taste of blood and equates the weirwood eyes to fire. Is this the healthy maintaining of being a man that Jojen preaches to Bran or something else? Ghost is not a friend but a part of him. Identity themes there as well as a backhanded reinforcement of a sense of loneliness.

Isolation

Jon chooses to dine with the men and changes his mind. I think this proves his earlier choice to be correct. He can't go back or be both LC and part of his old clique. They invented officer's clubs for a reason. His officers are supposed to be the ones he shares a certain companionship with yet he has nothing of that personal connection with them. In time he would likely have it with Giant and his other new fort commanders. If a Ser Denys or even a Cotter Pyke were here he might seek them out, but Marsh and Yarwick don't seem to appeal to his friendship void.

A very dense chapter so please feel free to jump in with whatever struck you regardless of whether I mentioned it here.

[bemused]

Once again I most wanted to spout when I had the least time.. now I suppose we will have zoomed on... Drat!

Ibbison.. I really like your alternative read on the Slynt situation.

I like the 2 mask approach ,too ... but am really expecting and anticipating a third approach... As Bumps! points out people too often forget the second half of the wisdom Aemon dispenses. That conversation is full of goodies , in hindsight.. For example , this...

Jon : “He would do whatever was right,” he said... ringingly, to make up for his hesitation. “No matter what.”

Aemon : “Then Lord Eddard is a man in ten thousand. Most of us are not so strong."

...forshadows what Jon goes on to strive to do , though at the time, he can't know under what dramatic circumstances ( whether he fully succeeds is yet to be seen ) ...The " No matter what " doesn't have to mean 'and hang the consequences' , or just reflect a son's loyalty - but , in order for ' right ' to be done, the possible consequences must first be weighed.

Can Jon become a man in ten thousand ?..I don't think that's unattainable.. We've seen that Bran's abilities , alone make him a man in a million , if I've figured BR's equation correctly ;) .. (anyway, very, very unique.)

Jon has a natural mindset that makes him extremely perceptive, but that needs to be grown through experience, And.. :D .. he also has a ' blind rage ' mechanism ( connected to being a warg? dragon?), that may not always be a bad thing , if he can 1) come to understand it and 2) learn to control it ( meaning, to surpress it or encourage it when necessary ). Balance will be everything.

Paper Waver... about Jon/Thorne =/= Slynt/Jon

Jon - a 14 yr.old boy, never away from his family before , idolizes his father, who he's always had reason to see as the opposite of a traitor... His reaction was purely emotional - without thought. Yes, he attacks an officer , not the LC , not even the first of his order ( and a man known to bait the new recruits mercilessly ), and not in refusing to obey, but in response to a barb meant for him to overhear .. Any LC would take this into account. We can't know what the eventual cost to Jon would have been because of the wight incident , but the first step of confining him to quarters, seems to me designed to give him an opportunity to cool off and think about it. ..Jon affords this same oportunity to Slynt .

Slynt - a man with grown sons who has already held a position of leadership himself ,corrupt or not ( and I wonder how much insubordination he would "suffer" from his men )... His is not just an emotional reaction... Whatever he suspects of Jon's motives.. he ought to know that to refuse an order should be unthinkable, unless - he thought there was a higher authority he could appeal to , or unless he thought that his refusal would spark an immediate overthrow of Jon's command .. or unless he thought that Jon could easily be dealt with by the same methods used for the men in KL who were going to testify against him ( or any combination of the above ).

"Why should we think," etc....Sorry if I wasn't clear..I didn't mean to say that you or anyone else should not imagine Slynt sees a parallel with Barristan , if you like... But for me, that's a very, very remote possibility, since Slynt never even mentions Selmy to anyone. There are many other recent incidents directly related to Jon that are more likely to be on his mind , IMO. I feel you give Slynt more credit for intelligent thought than he deserves.

ETA: a-a-ar-r-gh-h-h.. .simultaneous posting :D :D

[Lummel]

...Would The Ned have sent Gilly away with Mance's baby had he been in Jon's position? Perhaps, although based on Ned's treating of Cersei and her children, I have to wonder. Not saying this is Genes Talking, just that even if Jon aims to be like Ned, sometimes he makes decisions I find rather un-Ned like, and the Gilly treatment is one of them. This decision by Jon's is also inspired not by Rhaegar of course (on account of being dead) but by another Targaryen: Aemon. It's Aemon's words to Egg Jon is internalising. In other words: ADWD Jon is now internalising some dragon lessons along with his Nedardisms and it seems to me they are perhaps less gentle. As Aemon told Tyrion, he had rarely been called "kind" and neither is his advice to kill the boy and let the man be born.

I don't know, what would The Ned have done? (Perhaps told Stannis that both the children were his? :laugh:) but on the whole my impression that The Ned was more flexible in practise, while Jon seems to be holding up his practise as a set of precepts :dunno:

No, I like what you say here, Aemon's advice is not kind, it is a bit "Fire and Blood" and creative destruction. The child is not the father of the man in Aemon's phrase but is like an enemy that prevents the man from coming into being. It is a rather lizard like conception. The egg has to be cracked apart for the new creature to come out.

...While this comes up thematically, I find myself wondering if there isn't something different being raised with Jon's story. Justice with Slynt should have been carried out long ago. Robert should have killed him for the corruption charges Stannis clues us in about. Tyrion should have killed him for Barra and for Ned. When those who hold the power to dispense justice fail, the result is that people must make their own justice or suffer injustice. We see that repeatedly with glimpses of armed smallfolk, the sparrows, and the Brotherhood without Banners. Gilly comes to Jon for justice and protection. Alys will come to him for justice and protection too. With Jon I see a pattern of the problems of failed justice falling in his lap. Even the political tightrope he has to walk with the Watch is a matter of Kings failing in their duties and the responsibility to deal with that failure falls into Jon's lap.

Jon gets justice for the direwolf pups, justice for the Stark born a girl who wants to play with swords, justice for Sam whose mentor Thorne sees no use for him. There's an early pattern that evolves as he does. My suspicion is that this fits with the entire "king" theme where Jon starts acting like the de facto "true king" without the official title-- at least as it applies to Jon's arc even though all the justice questions you ask are clearly posed by the author...

I like this, all these problems rolling on and on until somebody applies some justice to resolve them. Jon is the person with whom the buck stops!

Jon III (ADwD)

...Our chapter opens with "Mance" being brought out bound in ropes for his execution...

• Jon read the Jade Compendium. A little more information trickle...

...A very dense chapter so please feel free to jump in with whatever struck you regardless of whether I mentioned it here.

:thumbsup:

A couple of quick points before I come back later to your analysis.

First off, that Jon read the Jade Compendium. Two things here, we see Jon in the chapter isolating himself from his old friends, he is no longer Prince Hal and Falstaff's jokes are inappropriate for Henry V, er, the Lord Commander to approve of and we see him send away Grenn, Toad, Pyp and the other one whose name I've forgotten rather than have to order them to put their lives at risk at some point in line with some of The Ned's advice that he remembers - but he still needs companionship and somebody to share his doubts with so we see him go to Clydas. So there's a tension between the isolation of command and the need for people to talk to.

But what he says to Clydas reveals that he knows the Lightbringer is a fraud, so does he presume that Melisandre and Stannis are lying to everybody about Stannis being Azor Ahai or does he worry that Stannis is looking for a suitable person to stick the sword into to give it life or something else?

The main thought in my head was the contrast between 'The Mances' and Slynt's executions

Impromptu vs planned

Slynt tries to take refuge in a cage vs 'Mance' being pushed into a cage

Stannis and Jon make eye contact vs Stannis and Jon not making eye contact

Execution was to be by hanging but slynt is actually beheaded vs Execution was to be by fire but 'Mance' is actually shot

In both the condemned receives a fast death rather than the intended slow one, in both the pre-death scene is pathetic, no noble last words just a desire to live. In both cases the death makes a very public statement.

[SeanF]

I've often wondered why "Mance" came to his death, smiling, even with a halter round his neck. Was he trying to make a brave last show, and then his nerve failed him, or had Melisandre completely deceived Rattleshirt about the reasons why she was glamouring him? I think the latter is likely, as he began shouting that he wasn't king, and complaining about witchery. I'd love to know what she had promised him.

[The Drunkard]

He had ordered out two hundred men, more than half the garrison of Castle Black. Mounted in solemn sable ranks with tall spears in hand, they had drawn up their hoods to shadow their faces … and hide the fact that so many were greybeards and green boys. The free folk feared the Watch. Jon wanted them to take that fear with them to their new homes south of the Wall.

-

"FREE FOLK! Your false gods cannot help you. Your false horn did not save you. Your false king brought you only death, despair, defeat … but here stands the true king. BEHOLD HIS GLORY! "

Stannis Baratheon drew Lightbringer.

The sword glowed red and yellow and orange, alive with light. Jon had seen the show before … but not like this, never before like this. Lightbringer was the sun made steel. When Stannis raised the blade above his head, men had to turn their heads or cover their eyes. Horses shied, and one threw his rider. The blaze in the fire pit seemed to shrink before this storm of light, like a small dog cowering before a larger one. The Wall itself turned red and pink and orange, as waves of color danced across the ice. Is this the power of king' s blood?

"Westeros has but one king," said Stannis. His voice rang harsh, with none of Melisandre's music. "With this sword I defend my subjects and destroy those who menace them. Bend the knee, and I promise you food, land, and justice. Kneel and live. Or go and die. The choice is yours."

I thought it was interesting the different ways Stannis and Jon go about impressing upon the wildlings the same thing.

A while back I think butterbumps! made a couple of posts suggesting that Jon and Mance had come to an understanding prior to Stannis' attack, but for my part I don't believe that would have worked. Mance is a prideful guy and was (seemingly) confident in his ability to take the Wall given enough time, and if there's anything wildlings are united in, it's their derision of 'kneelers'. To get them into the realm in a way that has them abide the laws of Westeros, I think they did need to be taken down a couple hundred pegs, to really fear the realm they were trying to enter. If the battle wasn't enough, the show that Stannis is putting on (and that Jon is contributing to) is meant to hammer it home.

The two of them both want the wildlings suitably intimidated by the power they have on display, as it serves to keep them in line upon crossing the Wall, and presumably to make any further attacks seem utterly hopeless. The focus with Stannis is on him being the true king, on the side of the true god, with all the magical power that entails. With Jon, the focus is on his men and the reputation his order has.

"The free folk despise kneelers," he had warned Stannis. "Let them keep their pride, and they will love you better." His Grace would not listen. He said, "It is swords I need from them, not kisses."

Stannis doesn't care about their pride, their way of life or them having any love for him, he just wants them serving the true king, on the side of the only god he has any reason to care for, abiding by his kingdom's customs. Jon thinks they can serve just as well keeping their own gods and their own customs; he doesn't want to impose any religious or cultural restrictions on them.

Stannis' approach is much more grand and quite lofty compared to Jon's more practical one. Magic, gods and rightful claims are worth a lot less to the wildlings than the leadership, personal charisma and authority Jon ends up demonstrating to the wildlings during his time at the Wall.

I've often wondered why "Mance" came to his death, grinning. Was he trying to make a brave last show, and then his nerve failed him, or had Melisandre completely deceived Rattleshirt about the reasons why she was glamouring him? I think the latter is likely, as he began shouting that he wasn't king, and complaining about witchery. I'd love to know what she had promised him.

I think she would've completely fooled him, promising him a position similar to Val's, in that they would pretend he was Mance (and hey, he gets to be Mance) so that they could parade him around. Rattleshirt just realizes too late that they intend to burn him. I don't think we'll ever know, though.

[bemused]

Good stuff, Ragnorak.. I'm staying up late to get some thoughts registered on topics I've been waiting for.

Jon's loneliness is palpable in this chapter and I agree , it can hardly be less for Val ..especially if some of the mystery around her springs from some of the suspicions I have about her ( which will come up later ). a few points..

Shooting Mance

Jon and Stannis both know that Mance's life is forfeit by law. But a king can make or set aside whatever laws he pleases. Jon saw that as Stannis' prisoner , Mance could be spared. Stannis sees the utility in keeping Mance alive, but thinks there would be outrage among the NW. He doesn't really want to take over the Wall.

Jon has told Gilly what a cruel death burning is and has said to Sam that if Mance is to die he would sooner take his head himself ( a death fit for nobility , again ?) rather than see him burn. If Stannis had given Mance to Jon at this point , Jon may well have felt compelled to take his head.

So. Stannis settles on a multi- purpose show / statement by executing "Mance". The fire , the burning of the horn (wildfire or some other pyromancer's trick) ,the extra energy put into Lightbringer, compelling Val to stand with him... all calculated for maximum effect.This will..

1) satisfy the NW thirst for justice.

2) break Mance's hold over the wildlings , who Stannis hopes will turn to him

3) force conversion to R'Hllor , further cutting the free folk off from everything they've known and making Stannis the only game in town.

Leading up to this ,Stannis has been oddly intractable whenever Jon argues for letting Mance live. Cutting Jon short , even while saying he agrees Mance would be a valuable asset . He was willing to face any amount of outrage to free Jon ( also a potential asset) from his vows. Hmmmm...

"Mance's" un-Mance-like behaviour stuck out a mile even at first reading, but glamours had not been introduced at that time. ( It must have been very upsetting to anyone who thought they knew him). Jon can't interfere in the sentence , but in a display of compassion ( pre-planned ) he can lessen Mance's suffering.

Jon refuses to meet Stannis' eyes . Jon is setting another boundary. Even though his power is far outmatched by Stannis' , there are limits to what Jon will condone... and in this , he will not be judged by Stannis. ( He had to take part in the proceedings , but he won't be party to that .)

I believe Stannis and Mel are acting from the same script here. No differences between his and hers. Both know what's going on and why.

Val

Someone else brought this up somewhere ( apologies if it was here ).. bronze seems to be compatible with magic, while iron is a barrier to it...I like that . Makes me think instantly of Bronze Yohn's spell-protected armour, and iron preventing shades from rising., etc.

Val's Bronze circlet is appropriate enough in that bronze is the metal of the First Men, but may have a sort of magic/ supernatural connotation as well. Clad in white and gold under an ermine cloak. To us , ermine and gold evoke royalty, and the emphasis on white - purity ,in our world at least, and weirwoods , the North..snow.. the cold brings colour to her cheeks. ( Cold does that , but I can't help feeling that these things , cold , weirwoods , the North , snow..are things that make her bloom .)

They could have let him keep his cloak .....I'm betting they did ;) or someone's keeping it for him.

I won't say too much about Marsh tonight , as my fingers are threatening to fall off , but..

At first ,he's feeling Jon out , but he obviously has set ideas of his own , and I agree his reasoning is not entirely honest when it comes to fighting the common foe.

"Slynt's" lies linger....Consider the following....

Marsh hesitated. “Lord Snow, I am not one to bear tales, but there has been talk that you are becoming too … too friendly with Lord Stannis. Some even suggest that you are … a …”

A rebel and a turncloak, aye, and a bastard and a warg as well . Janos Slynt might be gone, but his lies lingered. “I know what they say.” Jon had heard the whispers, had seen men turn away when he crossed the yard. “What would they have me do, take up swords against Stannis and the wildlings both?

His Grace has thrice the fighting men we do, and is our guest besides. The laws of hospitality protect him. And we owe him and his a debt.”

“Lord Mormont’s last ranging cost the Watch a quarter of its men, my lord. We need to conserve what strength remains us. Every death diminishes us, and we are stretched so thin … Take the high ground and win the battle, my uncle used to say. No ground is higher than the Wall, Lord Commander.”

( cough , cough ) I am not the one to bear tales ( cough , cough) ..Spare us , Bowen.

Jon points out the obvious problems with Bowen's claim that the men say he's too friendly with Stannis and tells him point blank that he doesn't intend to take any side. I think we already can see that Bowen is not listening. Bowen wants him to take a side.. He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer , but he ought to be able to understand the dilemma Jon points out to him.

If he had understanding , or cared to have, he could be a great service to Jon by making those points to the men he hears complaining.... Every death diminishes us....He's quick to point out how many men Mormont's ranging cost , but conveniently leaves out the cost of his own adventure , while offering his own tactical wisdom, and that borrowed from his uncle...Who he? I'd like to know. Paternal uncle? maternal? What high ground did he hold, if any?( hope we find out).

Jon knows how many men Bowen cost the watch , and how many more he almost cost them. Jon's polite to Bowen and says he'll think on all Bowen's said... but it won't take much thinking to come to the realization that Bowen's tactical wisdom is not very valuable.

Now here's the issue I have with Slynt's lingering lies, and how many men his death may have alienated.

Those lies did not originate with Slynt. They were fed to him by Thorne.... and they live on largely because Thorne and Bowen are there to keep repeating them , each in his own way.. Stannis said Slynt's own men seemed to like him well enough ... but they were relatively few... Well enough. Does that conjure up deep loyalty ? It doesn't for me.

This was a man who sold positions and demanded kickbacks from his men. What coin is he using at the wall ? Promises of Tywin's favour ?... Now that Tywin's death is known , it's by no means sure that however many men were originally convinced to support Slynt (by quoting Tywin's letter) would stay convinced. ( Note that his supporters were not anti-Jon voters. Jon's name wasn't even in the hat when Slynt gained them ) ...So, while it would be silly to assume Jon has no opposition ,apart from the later known conspirators , I don't think we should assume great numbers are implied by Bowen's reports of what "the men say".

[SeanF]

Bemused, yes. The bravest man might start screaming, when being burned alive, but Mance would have tried to keep his nerve. He wouldn't have screamed or begged for mercy, prior to the flames reaching him.

I tend to agree that Stannis was in on the deception, as well.

Jon again shows that, while he has no qualms about capital punishment, he's opposed to torment. My guess is that, even had he known about the deception, he'd still prefer Rattleshirt to have a quick death.

[Mithras]

Good work Ragnorak. I see a direct nod to a future chapter so please allow me to quote a bit from Jon V.

Jon III (ADwD)

Beneath the weeping Wall, Lady Melisandre raised her pale white hands. “We all must choose,” she proclaimed. “Man or woman, young or old, lord or peasant, our choices are the same.” Her voice made Jon Snow think of anise and nutmeg and cloves. She stood at the king’s side on a wooden scaffold raised above the pit. “We choose light or we choose darkness. We choose good or we choose evil. We choose the true god or the false.”

The problem of choice according to Mel is purely on religious terms.

Jon V (ADwD)

“Hal, what was it that you told this woman?”

Hal looked confused. “About the food, you mean? An apple or an onion? That’s all I said. They got to pick.”

“You have to pick,” Jon Snow repeated. “All of you. No one is asking you to take our vows, and I do not care what gods you worship. My own gods are the old gods, the gods of the North, but you can keep the red god, or the Seven, or any other god who hears your prayers. It’s spears we need. Bows. Eyes along the Wall.”

Jon OTOH has practical and real concerns. He has to feed the people. This brings some parallels from harvest god myths or death-rebirth-deities, which look well considering Jon will “die” at the end of ADwD and be reborn.

The choice between an apple and an onion is very interesting. It is like the (red) apple of Mel vs. the onion of Davos, the ultimate dilemma of Stannis.

Fighting the darkness with a magic sword is Mel’s course of action but fighting the famine and starvation in the upcoming Long Night never occurs in Mel’s mind. In fact, we will see that she does not pay attention to food at all. Saving people from starvation must be the main concern of the hero figure in the Long Night yet Mel totally misses this point. It is also ironic how Davos saved Stannis from starvation with the onions he smuggled.

[bemused]

SeanF...Yes, and I meant to say above - Does shooting Mance echo the quote I gave earlier ..from Jon to Aemon in AGOT.. that Ned would do what was right ...no matter what ? I think it might , a bit.

[Ibbison from Ibben]

Her voice made Jon Snow think of anise and nutmeg and cloves.

aSoS, in the baths at Harrenhall

Qyburn had brought a flask as well. "What is it?" Jaime demanded when the chainless maester pressed him to drink.

"Licorice steeped in vinegar, with honey and cloves. It will give you some strength and clear your head."

Licorice is a root, unrelated to anise, but licorice and aniseed have similar flavors and uses. Are we supposed to see some similarities between Mel and Qyburn? (Qyburn being a bit vinegary.)

[Lummel]

...If he had understanding , or cared to have, he could be a great service to Jon by making those points to the men he hears complaining.... Every death diminishes us....He's quick to point out how many men Mormont's ranging cost , but conveniently leaves out the cost of his own adventure , while offering his own tactical wisdom, and that borrowed from his uncle...Who he? I'd like to know. Paternal uncle? maternal? What high ground did he hold, if any?( hope we find out)...

Just going back to the question of where Marsh came from, even he is not from the neck, just his surname alone suggests that he is stuck down in the soggy bottom and doesn't have much personal experience with the high ground himself :laugh:

Good work Ragnorak. I see a direct nod to a future chapter so please allow me to quote a bit from Jon V.

Jon III (ADwD)

Beneath the weeping Wall, Lady Melisandre raised her pale white hands. “We all must choose,” she proclaimed. “Man or woman, young or old, lord or peasant, our choices are the same.” Her voice made Jon Snow think of anise and nutmeg and cloves. She stood at the king’s side on a wooden scaffold raised above the pit. “We choose light or we choose darkness. We choose good or we choose evil. We choose the true god or the false.”

The problem of choice according to Mel is purely on religious terms.

Jon V (ADwD)

“Hal, what was it that you told this woman?”

Hal looked confused. “About the food, you mean? An apple or an onion? That’s all I said. They got to pick.”

“You have to pick,” Jon Snow repeated. “All of you. No one is asking you to take our vows, and I do not care what gods you worship. My own gods are the old gods, the gods of the North, but you can keep the red god, or the Seven, or any other god who hears your prayers. It’s spears we need. Bows. Eyes along the Wall.”...

The choice between an apple and an onion is very interesting. It is like the (red) apple of Mel vs. the onion of Davos, the ultimate dilemma of Stannis...

Yes, I agree, the business of choosing and the symbolism of apples and onions is important. The Stannis/Melisandre choice looks a bit vicious to me. You can live south of the Wall if you kneel and if you give up your gods or you can take your chances north of the wall - a land from whence you were already trying to flee. A great choice there. Jon's offer is a better one and picking up on Ragnorak's point about Jon as providing the justice that other's could be bothered to offer, his offer starts to resolve the problem that those people who bent the knee become - ie they are just drifting about, no stake in society, no land, no food, no jobs and not all loyal to the new god.

I've often wondered why "Mance" came to his death, smiling, even with a halter round his neck...had Melisandre completely deceived Rattleshirt about the reasons why she was glamouring him? I think the latter is likely, as he began shouting that he wasn't king, and complaining about witchery. I'd love to know what she had promised him.

That was my presumption too...maybe he'd been told he'd have to bend the knee and then could live free? :dunno:

[Ragnorak]

He had ordered out two hundred men, more than half the garrison of Castle Black. Mounted in solemn sable ranks with tall spears in hand, they had drawn up their hoods to shadow their faces … and hide the fact that so many were greybeards and green boys. The free folk feared the Watch. Jon wanted them to take that fear with them to their new homes south of the Wall.

-

"FREE FOLK! Your false gods cannot help you. Your false horn did not save you. Your false king brought you only death, despair, defeat … but here stands the true king. BEHOLD HIS GLORY! "

Stannis Baratheon drew Lightbringer.

The sword glowed red and yellow and orange, alive with light. Jon had seen the show before … but not like this, never before like this. Lightbringer was the sun made steel. When Stannis raised the blade above his head, men had to turn their heads or cover their eyes. Horses shied, and one threw his rider. The blaze in the fire pit seemed to shrink before this storm of light, like a small dog cowering before a larger one. The Wall itself turned red and pink and orange, as waves of color danced across the ice. Is this the power of king' s blood?

"Westeros has but one king," said Stannis. His voice rang harsh, with none of Melisandre's music. "With this sword I defend my subjects and destroy those who menace them. Bend the knee, and I promise you food, land, and justice. Kneel and live. Or go and die. The choice is yours."

I thought it was interesting the different ways Stannis and Jon go about impressing upon the wildlings the same thing.

A while back I think butterbumps! made a couple of posts suggesting that Jon and Mance had come to an understanding prior to Stannis' attack, but for my part I don't believe that would have worked. Mance is a prideful guy and was (seemingly) confident in his ability to take the Wall given enough time, and if there's anything wildlings are united in, it's their derision of 'kneelers'. To get them into the realm in a way that has them abide the laws of Westeros, I think they did need to be taken down a couple hundred pegs, to really fear the realm they were trying to enter. If the battle wasn't enough, the show that Stannis is putting on (and that Jon is contributing to) is meant to hammer it home.

The two of them both want the wildlings suitably intimidated by the power they have on display, as it serves to keep them in line upon crossing the Wall, and presumably to make any further attacks seem utterly hopeless. The focus with Stannis is on him being the true king, on the side of the true god, with all the magical power that entails. With Jon, the focus is on his men and the reputation his order has.

"The free folk despise kneelers," he had warned Stannis. "Let them keep their pride, and they will love you better." His Grace would not listen. He said, "It is swords I need from them, not kisses."

Stannis doesn't care about their pride, their way of life or them having any love for him, he just wants them serving the true king, on the side of the only god he has any reason to care for, abiding by his kingdom's customs. Jon thinks they can serve just as well keeping their own gods and their own customs; he doesn't want to impose any religious or cultural restrictions on them.

Stannis' approach is much more grand and quite lofty compared to Jon's more practical one. Magic, gods and rightful claims are worth a lot less to the wildlings than the leadership, personal charisma and authority Jon ends up demonstrating to the wildlings during his time at the Wall.

I think she would've completely fooled him, promising him a position similar to Val's, in that they would pretend he was Mance (and hey, he gets to be Mance) so that they could parade him around. Rattleshirt just realizes too late that they intend to burn him. I don't think we'll ever know, though.

Unless Rattleshirt is another secret Targ, I think we can say that it isn't the power of King's Blood.

Stannis and Jon both seem to want a great many of the same things-- Mance spared, the Wildlings through the Wall, the forts along the Wall manned, Winterfell to go to a child of Ned Stark. They go about these "same things" very differently. As side note, I think the differences between Stannis and Jon despite similar goals and the accords they can reach make a good contrast with his differences with Marsh and the accords they can't reach. Jon wants Stannis to openly display mercy to Mance and offer him clemency at least as far as the death penalty even if not his freedom. Stannis and his laws of iron won't permit this public display of mercy but apparently a private shadow mercy is permissible. I suppose in some ways this makes sense for Stannis. Pragmatism is the reason to spare Mance and pragmatism is the justification so many lords have thrown at Stannis for not supporting him as king. Sparing Mance and winning the Wildlings as friends is far more of a Robert move.

I agree that the Wildlings needed to be taken down a good deal in order to peacefully assimilate into the realm. How far is enough and how far is too far that creates another sort of assimilation problem? Jon's later offers of the apple or onion and his deal with Tormund address very specific problems and ask for very specific needs to be met. Hostages appease the Northern neighbors, surrendered treasures pay for food, and service until Spring meets the Wall's needs and keeps the peace in the North until the food issue won't cause war. Stannis has already utterly defeated these people and is burning their king. Take their gods and their dignity and the only thing they have left is their lives. Look to your khal and see what life is worth, when all the rest is gone. These people have no stake left in anything much less a stake in the cause of Stannis to bind their fates to his.

I'm left wondering how much of this is Stannis being Stannis and how much is him choosing the red hawk.

I'm also struck by the public aspect of all this. Aside from the chapter framing Jaime comes to mind. He was insistent that Beric be killed in a very public manner yet was content to let Blackwood pretend that he had knelt privately. There's something here that I can't precisely pin down.

Good work Ragnorak. I see a direct nod to a future chapter so please allow me to quote a bit from Jon V.

Jon III (ADwD)

Beneath the weeping Wall, Lady Melisandre raised her pale white hands. “We all must choose,” she proclaimed. “Man or woman, young or old, lord or peasant, our choices are the same.” Her voice made Jon Snow think of anise and nutmeg and cloves. She stood at the king’s side on a wooden scaffold raised above the pit. “We choose light or we choose darkness. We choose good or we choose evil. We choose the true god or the false.”

The problem of choice according to Mel is purely on religious terms.

Jon V (ADwD)

“Hal, what was it that you told this woman?”

Hal looked confused. “About the food, you mean? An apple or an onion? That’s all I said. They got to pick.”

“You have to pick,” Jon Snow repeated. “All of you. No one is asking you to take our vows, and I do not care what gods you worship. My own gods are the old gods, the gods of the North, but you can keep the red god, or the Seven, or any other god who hears your prayers. It’s spears we need. Bows. Eyes along the Wall.”

Jon OTOH has practical and real concerns. He has to feed the people. This brings some parallels from harvest god myths or death-rebirth-deities, which look well considering Jon will “die” at the end of ADwD and be reborn.

The choice between an apple and an onion is very interesting. It is like the (red) apple of Mel vs. the onion of Davos, the ultimate dilemma of Stannis.

Fighting the darkness with a magic sword is Mel’s course of action but fighting the famine and starvation in the upcoming Long Night never occurs in Mel’s mind. In fact, we will see that she does not pay attention to food at all. Saving people from starvation must be the main concern of the hero figure in the Long Night yet Mel totally misses this point. It is also ironic how Davos saved Stannis from starvation with the onions he smuggled.

I like the Stannis parallels you point out here.

Good stuff, Ragnorak.. I'm staying up late to get some thoughts registered on topics I've been waiting for.

Jon's loneliness is palpable in this chapter and I agree , it can hardly be less for Val ..especially if some of the mystery around her springs from some of the suspicions I have about her ( which will come up later ). a few points..

Shooting Mance

Jon and Stannis both know that Mance's life is forfeit by law. But a king can make or set aside whatever laws he pleases. Jon saw that as Stannis' prisoner , Mance could be spared. Stannis sees the utility in keeping Mance alive, but thinks there would be outrage among the NW. He doesn't really want to take over the Wall.

Jon has told Gilly what a cruel death burning is and has said to Sam that if Mance is to die he would sooner take his head himself ( a death fit for nobility , again ?) rather than see him burn. If Stannis had given Mance to Jon at this point , Jon may well have felt compelled to take his head.

So. Stannis settles on a multi- purpose show / statement by executing "Mance". The fire , the burning of the horn (wildfire or some other pyromancer's trick) ,the extra energy put into Lightbringer, compelling Val to stand with him... all calculated for maximum effect.This will..

1) satisfy the NW thirst for justice.

<snip>

I think it was Butterbumps who brought up the iron and bronze magical properties.

I like pretty much all of this, I just differ on the NW thirst part. Jon argues to let Mance live. I think killing Mance himself fits into Ned's pattern of doing things himself. Ned certainly didn't want to kill Lady but insisted he do it himself when the king wouldn't budge. Ned also insists on telling Jon about the Watch himself and a couple other items that slip my mind. I also see it as Stannis insisting the that the "laws of iron" apply. I would imagine Mel swayed him the way she did Jon with sending Mance south. You can have your sister and your vows too type of thing. Stannis probably started wresting with the conflict and Mel gave him a magical out that didn't require that he make and own the tough choice.

Your quoting of "the laws of hospitality protect him" reminded me-- Is this an intentional Red Wedding reference on Jon's part?

ETA

aSoS, in the baths at Harrenhall

Licorice is a root, unrelated to anise, but licorice and aniseed have similar flavors and uses. Are we supposed to see some similarities between Mel and Qyburn? (Qyburn being a bit vinegary.)

Nice catch but I'm not sure where to go with it.

[butterbumps!]

Nice work Rag. There's some other points I want to respond to when I get more time, but in the meantime:

A while back I think butterbumps! made a couple of posts suggesting that Jon and Mance had come to an understanding prior to Stannis' attack, but for my part I don't believe that would have worked. Mance is a prideful guy and was (seemingly) confident in his ability to take the Wall given enough time, and if there's anything wildlings are united in, it's their derision of 'kneelers'. To get them into the realm in a way that has them abide the laws of Westeros, I think they did need to be taken down a couple hundred pegs, to really fear the realm they were trying to enter. If the battle wasn't enough, the show that Stannis is putting on (and that Jon is contributing to) is meant to hammer it home.

The two of them both want the wildlings suitably intimidated by the power they have on display, as it serves to keep them in line upon crossing the Wall, and presumably to make any further attacks seem utterly hopeless. The focus with Stannis is on him being the true king, on the side of the true god, with all the magical power that entails. With Jon, the focus is on his men and the reputation his order has.

"The free folk despise kneelers," he had warned Stannis. "Let them keep their pride, and they will love you better." His Grace would not listen. He said, "It is swords I need from them, not kisses."

Stannis doesn't care about their pride, their way of life or them having any love for him, he just wants them serving the true king, on the side of the only god he has any reason to care for, abiding by his kingdom's customs. Jon thinks they can serve just as well keeping their own gods and their own customs; he doesn't want to impose any religious or cultural restrictions on them.

Stannis' approach is much more grand and quite lofty compared to Jon's more practical one. Magic, gods and rightful claims are worth a lot less to the wildlings than the leadership, personal charisma and authority Jon ends up demonstrating to the wildlings during his time at the Wall.

oh, yes, that was me-- I did bring it up here, but was a bit more critical about both Stannis and Mance (I know, how unlike me) in another recent thread, so that could be part of it too.

Just to clarify, though-- Jon, Mance and Stannis all reach the same conclusion: the wildlings need to get behind the Wall. That's the "understanding" I was highlighting-- how Jon and Mance were already of the opinion that the wildilngs need to come through, and that, once apprised of the situation, Stannis would share that "understanding" too. I'm not sure whether Jon and Mance alone could have reached a solution. Jon's interrupted from brainstorming solutions by Stannis' arrival, and it might be that there's really no practical way to get these people through at that point without an intervention from a higher authority. Stannis becomes a solution to that end.

What I was curious about, though, was whether if Stannis arrived in a diplomatic capacity and was part of the tent discussion, if Mance would still insist on his concessions. Mance didn't want to concede anything because he believed he didn't have to. But if confronted by Stannis and given terms for the resettlement, I was wondering if Mance would have seen reason and capitulated.

Mostly, I was asking about the hypothetical in light of the frequent view that Stannis' timely arrival was a godsend. There were some immediate benefits of Stannis' arrival as written, but also some disastrous consequences (namely, this is what leads to Hardhome and the scattering of wildlings), and I was curious if there could have been another way around it.

[Lyanna Stark]

I don't know, what would The Ned have done? (Perhaps told Stannis that both the children were his? :laugh:) but on the whole my impression that The Ned was more flexible in practise, while Jon seems to be holding up his practise as a set of precepts :dunno:

No, I like what you say here, Aemon's advice is not kind, it is a bit "Fire and Blood" and creative destruction. The child is not the father of the man in Aemon's phrase but is like an enemy that prevents the man from coming into being. It is a rather lizard like conception. The egg has to be cracked apart for the new creature to come out.

Yes, I thought so.There's also Aemon comments on that it won't be a pleasant thing for Jon to be Lord Commander, but that he should be strong enough to handle it (I'll see if I can dig out the quote later, it is in Sam's chapters I think. The other quote it reminded me of was this:

You're stronger than you seem though. I'll expect you'll survive a bit of humiliation. I did.

Cersei to Sansa in ACOk Sansa IV. Hardly kindly meant advice. On the other hand, I think we should normally be wary of kindly old men in ASOIAF, or Kindly Old Men even, as they normally aren't perhaps just as kindly as they may come across. Maester Aemon even tells us himself he isn't kind.

Your quoting of "the laws of hospitality protect him" reminded me-- Is this an intentional Red Wedding reference on Jon's part?

Either that, or it's just another emphasis on Guest Right, that it is Not the Done Thing to break it, even for annoying guests and underscores that Jon/Stannis/Mel/Wildlings might kill eachother in combat or execute traitors, but there are Certain Things you just don't do, unless you're a Frey/Bolton.

Thanks for the welcome back :) *waves to everyone* will be trying to bridge the last couple of pages later as I am up to speed on the actual chapters now at least.

[The Drunkard]

<snip>

Right, it had been a while since I read it. Those would've been some interesting conversations (especially when Mance tried using his 'horn of darkness' as leverage).

Can't believe we haven't seen the two of them talk, actually.

The choice between an apple and an onion is very interesting. It is like the (red) apple of Mel vs. the onion of Davos, the ultimate dilemma of Stannis.

Fighting the darkness with a magic sword is Mel’s course of action but fighting the famine and starvation in the upcoming Long Night never occurs in Mel’s mind. In fact, we will see that she does not pay attention to food at all. Saving people from starvation must be the main concern of the hero figure in the Long Night yet Mel totally misses this point. It is also ironic how Davos saved Stannis from starvation with the onions he smuggled.

I like that point. Melisandre does have a consistent tendency to approach her goals with a mystical mindset (stone dragons, blood sacrifice, prophetic saviours, magical swords), whereas Davos has an eye for the more immediate, mundane things that end up proving just as important. I think Jon's approach to holding the Wall is a lot closer to how Davos would run things (taking constant inventory, rationing food, negotiating with bankers, training recruits) and he does end up in a similar relationship with Melisandre, acknowledging her power but never quite trusting her (and denying her advances, too).

Unless Rattleshirt is another secret Targ, I think we can say that it isn't the power of King's Blood.

Stannis and Jon both seem to want a great many of the same things-- Mance spared, the Wildlings through the Wall, the forts along the Wall manned, Winterfell to go to a child of Ned Stark. They go about these "same things" very differently. As side note, I think the differences between Stannis and Jon despite similar goals and the accords they can reach make a good contrast with his differences with Marsh and the accords they can't reach. Jon wants Stannis to openly display mercy to Mance and offer him clemency at least as far as the death penalty even if not his freedom. Stannis and his laws of iron won't permit this public display of mercy but apparently a private shadow mercy is permissible. I suppose in some ways this makes sense for Stannis. Pragmatism is the reason to spare Mance and pragmatism is the justification so many lords have thrown at Stannis for not supporting him as king. Sparing Mance and winning the Wildlings as friends is far more of a Robert move.

I agree that the Wildlings needed to be taken down a good deal in order to peacefully assimilate into the realm. How far is enough and how far is too far that creates another sort of assimilation problem? Jon's later offers of the apple or onion and his deal with Tormund address very specific problems and ask for very specific needs to be met. Hostages appease the Northern neighbors, surrendered treasures pay for food, and service until Spring meets the Wall's needs and keeps the peace in the North until the food issue won't cause war. Stannis has already utterly defeated these people and is burning their king. Take their gods and their dignity and the only thing they have left is their lives. Look to your khal and see what life is worth, when all the rest is gone. These people have no stake left in anything much less a stake in the cause of Stannis to bind their fates to his.

I'm left wondering how much of this is Stannis being Stannis and how much is him choosing the red hawk.

I'm also struck by the public aspect of all this. Aside from the chapter framing Jaime comes to mind. He was insistent that Beric be killed in a very public manner yet was content to let Blackwood pretend that he had knelt privately. There's something here that I can't precisely pin down.

I think Melisandre might explain that with the Wall being a place of amplified magic. I agree, though, it does show that king's blood is not all that it's cracked up to be. If some pissy wildling can have a bigger effect than Alester Florent, there are definitely other factors at work.

I like that idea of the red hawk being at play here again. He abandons his ancestral gods for not being of any value to him, and to hell with his men if they disagree. He doesn't care to understand the significance of those gods to his people or what their destruction means, and here, he doesn't seem to care much for what the wildlings find significant, or to the significance of what he's destroying (their pride, religion, king). His insistence on certain other things, like Val being a queen, suggests the same, that he doesn't 'get' the wildlings, either because of a cultural boundary or just his stubborn nature.

I think you're absolutely right that leads to an assimilation problem, and the wildlings certainly aren't in a good way when they come through the Wall. I don't have my book on me, but I'd be interested in seeing how this group of wildlings compare to Tormund's.

aSoS, in the baths at Harrenhall

Licorice is a root, unrelated to anise, but licorice and aniseed have similar flavors and uses. Are we supposed to see some similarities between Mel and Qyburn? (Qyburn being a bit vinegary.)

I suppose both try to present a helpful front to masks their darker intentions/methods. Melisandre plays the faithful servant, masking the deceptions she relies on to win the 'great battle'. Qyburn plays the helpful physician, masking his desire to conduct torturous, necromantic experiments on his subjects. Neither seems to care much about their allies, either, beyond their usefulness. I believe Melisandre calls Stannis a 'vain king' chasing an 'empty throne', acts coy about him ever winning the throne to Davos when speaking about Axell's vision, and doesn't have anything positive to say about him during her POV beyond him being AAR, and therefore the necessary saviour. Qyburn puts on a smiling, grandfatherly face to his masters... but he probably has that same face to the people he's tearing into.

Neither should be trusted, that's for sure.

(According to wikipedia licorice is 'sweet root' in greek, so there's that.)

[bemused]

Apples and onions and spices...

I like the comparison of Mel to Qyburn.

Riffing off Paper Waver's comparison...It occurs to me that we automatically think of apples as crisp and juicy and tasty , but the ones in our example are actually shrunken and shriveled ...old and out of season. Onions are not as appealing , but they're also good for you, and keep much better than apples ...and does the thought of poisoned onions spring readily to mind ? Poisoned apples do .. Like Davos, onions are plain, but you can trust them to sustain you.

Without getting into the specific spices.. spices are exotic , like Mel , and can make the tasteless appetizing. They also can mask downright unpleasant flavours , and food that's well past it's freshness date ( even beginning to rot ).... Her voice masks the harsh reality of her choice ? .... something like that ?

The free folk are being forced into a choice , but what is offered to them is not real sustenance. It means they will wither as a people ... Jon provides them sustenance in the form of onion soup.

ETA: I'm longing for Jon and Davos to meet...

[Mithras]

ETA: I'm longing for Jon and Davos to meet...

:commie:

I would like to add JonCon to the mixture, though his days are numbered.

ETA: By the way, the poisoned red apple of a witch (Mel) brings the tale of Snow White into the picture. Of course Snow white was a girl but Mag the Mighty mistook Jon for Tormund's girl :drunk:

[Lykos]

Well, tart apples, like the Boskoop, keep almost as well as onions. Onions have a definite advantage though, because of their skins. If they´re rotten only on the outside, you can peel away the inflicted skins and have a pure and whole onion again. Lummel has already mentioned the catharsis, that comes with the tears that will be involved.

The apple on the other hand was regarded as the fruit of knowledge that enabled man to be cognisant of good and evil and also led to the expulsion from paradise. That the apple was chosen as the forbidden fruit in western europe is believed to be due to it´s latin name meaning evil.

I can see that the spices are serving as cover for something rotten.

“It is swords I need from them, not kisses.” The Choice is Yours.

ETA: Maybe it´s better to discuss the apple vs. onion question later, when Jon´s "feeding of the many" comes up.