Jon Snow ReRead Project! Part 6! (DwD--Pink Letter!)

[Julia H.]

I insist upon my idea that Mel is hiding something about her visions related to Stannis and Mance. Is something finally breaking through her thick head about the falsehood of Stannis as the AAR? She avoided the feast for some reason. And she reacted to Patchface when he made his prophecy that I relate to the Battle on Ice. I bet something Patchface said was related to her visions about Stannis that she didnot share and didnot understand.

So... When (and if) Melisandre realizes her mistake regarding Stannis, will that mean that Stannis as king's blood is fair game, too? (I'm afraid this is going out of hand. Do we need a macabre thread titled Who will burn next?)

I've just noticed something I've had never before: It is one thing that Stannis offers Wf to Jon along with releasing him from his vows legally. One can argue if he has the right to do so (I don't think so) and even he would do it because according to Mel, the vows sworn in front of a ww tree are not valid.

But here Axell practically takes it for granted that Jon could be released from his vows quite simply, marry Val and take Winterfell, which I find rather surprising. The purpose of the NW vows is to keep the brothers at the Wall for their entire life and so far we do not have any precedent where a sworn brother was legally released (though GRRM confirmed that it has happened before)

The easiest thing Axell could have done would be to say "LOL, you are a black brother, and there is NO WAY you could be released from your vows, so there is no point in keeping Val for yourself and don't even dream of Wf" - and instead he (along with Selyse's men) considers it a real threat.

It all confirms (for me, at least) that a NW brother can be released from his vows if there is a political need for that, and those who really need it won't be bothered by any oathbreaking. Obviously, the other side (Lannisters) will charge him for that and it all depends on who the winner is. But in the end, nobody will complain about releasing a NW brother if he ends up with an army of his own and enough supporters for his claim.

Perhaps there are several possibilities. The simplest is that the spineless southron fool has no idea how seriously the NW vow is taken.

It could also be seen as a question of political and military power. Oathkeeping in the NW is traditionally enforced by the Lord Commander and the Lord of Winterfell. If you happen to be the Lord Commander and you happen to win the title of Lord of Winterfell, you have the means to absolve yourself of the vow (whatever others might think of you), especially if you are supported by a private army.

Maester Aemon has told Jon that he must make his choice and live with it all the rest of his days. But how long could an oathbreaker of the NW live? Yet, Maester Aemon apparently saw a possibility for Jon to choose.

In wartime all laws and traditions are shattered. Just look at what happened to the sacred rights of guests at the Red Wedding. The Iron Throne will go to whoever can win it by military force or diplomatic cunning. Axell is probably familiar with the (apparently new) Stannis-principle that vows don't matter unless they are sworn to a specific god. If you have an army, you are entitled to do whatever you want to unless you are faced with a stronger army. In this context what does a vow matter?

But it is a very good observation that even law and tradition may allow the release of a black brother from the vow if there is a political need. Jon is the last descendant of a noble house on the male line. The survival of noble families is very important in a feudal society, so it is possible that all noble houses agree – theoretically – that the law must allow for such a situation. Any descendant, even a bastard (see Bael's story) or a sworn black brother, must be preferable to extinction. This could be a situation where the return of a black brother to society is legal (at least if he took the black voluntarily and was not sentenced to it).

Aemon was tested three times. The last one was during Robert's rebellion. "What could I have done, old, blind and frail?" Yet, Aemon regards his tests as choices. Perhaps as the last surviving Targaryen (not counting the exiled Viserys and Daenerys), he could have, at least in theory, left the service and he could have chosen to unite the remaining forces still loyal to the Targaryens. (If he had become king, he could have found the exiled children and he could have brought up Viserys to be his heir.) Perhaps that was the last choice he had to make. When Axell accuses Jon of wanting his father's seat, he also hurries to rub in his bastard status. Perhaps as the last living male Stark, Jon could claim the right to leave the NW, get married and father children (and be legitimized).

I am woefully behind on all the great posts in this reread, but I just wanted to put forth my two cents regarding Jon XII (Great summary butterbumps!). I am still catching up, so sorry if this has been discussed in a previous chapter…

I find this line very fitting with what Jon is going through with the crossing of the wildings as well as the other changes he’s introduced in the NW. A few chapters ago he was concerned for being remembered as sleepy Jon Snow in case the wildings slipped under his watch, and here they are passing through directly under it. I imagine that Bowen and his company view the NW vows with same cut and dry simplicity as Aero views his and that Jon himself may wish they were as simple as that.

Is this massive undertaking Jon’s greatest glory as Lord Commander or will it be remembered as his greatest shame? It is because of his decisions that the sun was to shine upon a world forever changed the next day preceded by a night that signaled Jon’s war had just begun. There seems to be a parallel with Jaime too, who considers slaying Aerys as his finest act, but it was also the one who earned him the scorned nickname of Kingslayer.

It also presents an interesting comparison with Stannis’ version of the crossing where his “glory” was achieved at the price of shaming the wildings into submission (never completely achieved btw).

What I love about the way GRRM has presented us with the distinction between glory and shame for characters such as Jon, Doran, Jaime or Dany is that these concepts can be completely ambiguous and open to interpretation. From a reader’s point of view compelling arguments can be presented on both sides since the text is written in a way that leaves these issues open-ended, encouraging us, as readers, to form our own judgments.

Going back to Jon...In the dream the ghosts of the price of his choices come to haunt him the night before he crosses another bridge that will determine his legacy or how would he be remembered as.Not entirely surprising because after all, legacy has been something important for Jon in the past. Is part of the reason he joined the NW in the first place and even as recently as ASOS the perspective of dying a turncloak troubled him more than death itself.

However Jon is willing to overcome this and his fears on the matter because he understands that the dice is cast and the game must be played to its conclusion or else the price is one too high to pay.

Personally I find that Jon's actions and choices so far may not be politically correct in a strictly manner as is the case with how Selyse may view ‘Jon’s private army’; not necessarily uplifting as Ed’s tone may denote or not even necessarily seen as triumphant by either Jon or his peers no more than facing a harsh reality instead of an easy falsehood is an enjoyable moment in real life. The fact that Jon, despite his self doubts and misgivings or his early concern for how he wanted to be remembered as chooses to face the hard reality head on shows how far he is come from the ‘sweet lad’, to borrow Tormund’s words, we met back in AGOT.

Jon has been granted what he prayed for in the weirwood grove: the wisdom to know what must be done and the courage (enormous moral courage) to do it. Of all the lessons Jon has internalized, perhaps Qhorin's lesson stands out as especially revelant with regard to the Lord Commander's choices: "Our honor means no more than our lives, so long as the realm is safe."

It still matters to him what his reputation will be in the end, but he knows what must be done and knowing means responsibility. Only a life can pay for a life all over the realms of men, but Jon's voluntary sacrifice of life, family and ambitions pays for thousands of lives.

I wonder if, somewhere off-page, Jon has understood or has been able to guess what Ned Stark's last choice in life was, and how he chose "what was right" over his personal honour and reputation.

[Lyanna Stark]

*waves to everyone*

I find this line very fitting with what Jon is going through with the crossing of the wildings as well as the other changes he’s introduced in the NW. A few chapters ago he was concerned for being remembered as sleepy Jon Snow in case the wildings slipped under his watch, and here they are passing through directly under it. I imagine that Bowen and his company view the NW vows with same cut and dry simplicity as Aero views his and that Jon himself may wish they were as simple as that.

Is this massive undertaking Jon’s greatest glory as Lord Commander or will it be remembered as his greatest shame? It is because of his decisions that the sun was to shine upon a world forever changed the next day preceded by a night that signaled Jon’s war had just begun. There seems to be a parallel with Jaime too, who considers slaying Aerys as his finest act, but it was also the one who earned him the scorned nickname of Kingslayer.

It also presents an interesting comparison with Stannis’ version of the crossing where his “glory” was achieved at the price of shaming the wildings into submission (never completely achieved btw).

What I love about the way GRRM has presented us with the distinction between glory and shame for characters such as Jon, Doran, Jaime or Dany is that these concepts can be completely ambiguous and open to interpretation. From a reader’s point of view compelling arguments can be presented on both sides since the text is written in a way that leaves these issues open-ended, encouraging us, as readers, to form our own judgments.

That's a brilliant way to put it Winterfellian.

I wonder though if our "preconceived notions" of the character weigh in on how we judge those actions, even if they can be seen as good/bad/somewhere in between from different perspectives? Jaime's turn around from clear cut villain to more ambiguous character has certainly influenced how people view his killing of Aerys. In this case I am not talking about the action in itself, but which lens it is normally viewed through from the reader's perspective. It seems to me that will shift depending on the rest of the character's progression.

Doran is a more neutral character to start with, but he certainly gets some sympathy because he's just lost his brother. Dany might get a rougher deal after ADWD, while Jon's choice is normally viewed more unanimously as positive, even if as you point out, from the Night's Watch's perspective, that may not be so. It's just that the story isn't told from that perspective, so in omitting that, we read Jon's choices through a certain lens, while we get Jaime's especially through different points of view and it impacts how we interpret the action.

[-Winterfellian-]

Jon has been granted what he prayed for in the weirwood grove: the wisdom to know what must be done and the courage (enormous moral courage) to do it. Of all the lessons Jon has internalized, perhaps Qhorin's lesson stands out as especially revelant with regard to the Lord Commander's choices: "Our honor means no more than our lives, so long as the realm is safe."

I very much agree with this. I will only add that Jon has transcended past Qhorin's concept of the Realm to redefine it and include the Realms of men

I wonder though if our "preconceived notions" of the character weigh in on how we judge those actions, even if they can be seen as good/bad/somewhere in between from different perspectives? Jaime's turn around from clear cut villain to more ambiguous character has certainly influenced how people view his killing of Aerys. In this case I am not talking about the action in itself, but which lens it is normally viewed through from the reader's perspective. It seems to me that will shift depending on the rest of the character's progression.

**Waves back** Nice to see you again!

I think there is definitely something to do with it. GRRM seems to be deliberately blurring the lines here using the different perspectives as lens to view the story. Love is set up as either a characters greatest tragedy or glory the same as the line between a shameful action or a glorified one is a rather thin one.

Trying to detach myself from my preconceived notions regarding Jon (not an easy feat LOL) I find myself asking who gets to decide both in-worlds as well as for us readers. What marks the difference between glory and tragedy? Is it actions, intentions, consequences or the characters progression story-wise? Or is it merely a matter of perspective after all?

In Jons case, how will be his decision to change the face of Westeros forever judged in the future? As it is, it seems to be set up as the misunderstood choice, to borrow from the doves and ravens analogy. While moved also by humanitarian reasons he is doing what is needed for him, the NW and the wildings to survive, exhibiting along the way a few moments of ruthless pragmatism and tradition breaking (not unlike Dany, whos story in ADWD runs in parallel with his). Does this make him or even Dany any less of a hero or more because of it? They both appear to be justifying their actions to no one but themselves and guided by their own moral compasses after all, same as Jaime at the turning point in his life. This is both their strength and their weakness.

What sets Jon apart in my mind from someone like Dany or Jaime for example is his resolution. Jon is not only willing but determined to play the game to its conclusion. Dany appears to have given up until her epiphany by the end of the book while Jaime was literally caught red handed or else he would have gladly let someone else carry the shame/glory of slaying Aerys. I personally find this willingness to shoulder responsibility rather appealing, which is one of the reasons I can fan boy Jon at times.

I think this resolution tempered by him playing a game for survival rather than the game of thrones is what gives the air of reforging to this opening of the gates as orchestrated by Jon when contrasted when the one organized by Stannis or the one in Mereen.

[Julia H.]

The job of the Kingsguard is to protect one single life (or at best the lives of the members of a single family), while the job of the NW is to protect a lot of lives. Jaime came to the conclusion that the life he had sworn to protect was not worth all the other lives that had been (and would still be) sacrificed for it. Jon has come to the conclusion that the meaning of "the realms of men" has been interpreted too narrowly and he has decided to protect even more lives, opening the gate to the wildlings. Both of them adopt a broader perspective than that of the duty originally spelt out for them and both are criticized for their decisions.

"I must do as I think best... the Wall is mine, and so is this decision."

Yes, one of Jon's defining qualities is his determination to fully shoulder responsibility and to play the game to its conclusion. This is also very different from single-mindedly pursuing glory for glory's sake, so characteristic of Loras, for example.

Trying to detach myself from my preconceived notions regarding Jon (not an easy feat LOL) I find myself asking who gets to decide both in-worlds as well as for us readers. What marks the difference between glory and tragedy? Is it actions, intentions, consequences or the characters progression story-wise? Or is it merely a matter of perspective after all?

In Jons case, how will be his decision to change the face of Westeros forever judged in the future? As it is, it seems to be set up as the misunderstood choice, to borrow from the doves and ravens analogy. While moved also by humanitarian reasons he is doing what is needed for him, the NW and the wildings to survive, exhibiting along the way a few moments of ruthless pragmatism and tradition breaking (not unlike Dany, whos story in ADWD runs in parallel with his). Does this make him or even Dany any less of a hero or more because of it? They both appear to be justifying their actions to no one but themselves and guided by their own moral compasses after all, same as Jaime at the turning point in his life. This is both their strength and their weakness.

Glory is in the eye of the beholder?

Heroic and honourable leaders in history have been known to lead their people to disaster. However, history is written by the survivors, notably the victors. There isn't much Jon or anyone else in the Seven Kingdoms can expect in this respect if the Others win. If a leader can't make sure that there will be people in future to judge his actions at all, then any personal glory he wins will be short-lived, self-serving and meaningless.

Jon's decision to open the gate to the wildlings may not be viewed (even by himself) as an especially honourable or heroic one, although it is a decision that, in this form, has been made possible by a prior military victory only. Some people may even regard it as the betrayal of that victory now. Yet the decision does not only serve the interests of the wildlings. The NW does need more warriors / allies against the Others, and those castles need garrisons. If the Others come and the wildlings prove to be useful allies, Jon's decision will be vindicated, not necessarily as an act of heroism, but as a courageous and wise decision of a leader.

Heroism may be defined narrowly (as pertaining to military actions or actions involving a direct threat to one's life) or more broadly (including outstanding, selfless moral courage), but the concept always includes putting the lives / interests of other people before one's own. (In this latter sense, 14-year-old Jon is quite heroic when he argues for keeping the wolves for the true-born Stark-children.) By contrast, glory focuses on the self, and although it can be the result of heroism, there is heroism without glory (and glory without heroism). Glory is the summer dream of a child; heroism without glory can be the conscious choice of an adult. In the weirwood grove, Jon did not pray for glory; he prayed for the most important qualities of a leader: wisdom and courage, with wisdom coming first. It is this wisdom and the right kind of courage that can ensure the survival of the realm. Perhaps the songs will be about other heroes, but Jon's decision may be instrumental in making sure that there will be songs in the first place, and that is what he has chosen to be his legacy in history.

[e22ddie46]

Really well said Julie H. Particularly the bit about glory and heroism. This to me was taught to Jon back when he was heading north of the wall with Mormont the first time. Mormont was telling him about Robb becoming king and how everything Robb does will be recorded by the singers. When ultimately, everything Robb was doing was somewhat self serving. (I am aware I'm asking for hate, criticizing Robb) Jon, on the other hand, is making choices that he is aware will result in both his own men and the country seriously question him and yet he does it because he believes it right. Just like Jamie, he saves thousands despite the fact that people will hate him for it.

[Maia]

OK, a couple of observations about the previous chapter - Jon XI.

Ghost was the only protection Jon needed; the direwolf could sniff out foes, even those who hid their enmity behind smiles.

Now, this is very interesting in light of what is to come. Since, despite Mel's insistence on Jon being in danger from the men smiling to his face, Marsh hadn't been particularly friendly for some time and isn't going to become so. And Ghost is never particularly hostile to him. So, was Mel wrong? Is Jon here wrong too?

Mormont's raven followed Jon to the wildling camp without Jon's knowledge - Bloodraven certainly seems to keep close tabs on him. Bran is as yet unaware though, provided his timeline is roughly sequential with Jon.

Tormund told Jon that his son Torwynd's death was not Jon's fault - but is it really true? If not for Jon, the wildlings would have gotten through the Wall and Torwynd likely would have been alive, as well as Dormund, who was killed by one of Stannis's knights.

There is a sickness in Tormund's camp too - will we see some northern variation on the pale mare? And Castle Black doesn't even have a maester.

A river of blood runs between our peoples, old and deep and red. Stannis Baratheon is one of the few who favors admitting wildlings to the realm.

Jon really should have kept his own words in mind when he announced his decision to march on Winterfell with a host of wildlings!

Almost 200 giants and 80 mammoths are coming through too. We never learned whether they reached Eastwatch and whether assholish crony of Thorne's Ser Glendon Hewitt really let them through. Also, if giants et al. can walk around the Wall, what about the wights and the Others.

The Norrey looked like some old foxwrinkled and slight of build, but sly-eyed and spry. Torghen Flint was half a head shorter but must weigh twice as mucha stout gruff man with gnarled, red-knuckled hands as big as hams, leaning heavily on a blackthorn cane as he limped across the ice.

Hm, slyness of the Old Norrey is kind of stressed here. I know, I know that it is the majority conviction that the chiefs are secretly supporting Jon, but I wonder. Unlike Marsh, they seem friendly and smile, which, according to Mel is supposed to be a danger sign. And they may have wanted to have a check on Jon, should he really evolve into a king-beyond-the Wall.

I am also not sure that it was such a good idea to stress how hungry the wildlings are without disclosing the loan. Frankly, I find it unbelievable that Norrey and Flint agreed with letting them through so readily, when looked like they'd begin to starve in a few months and then not even the hostages would suffice to keep them put.

We cannot pick and choose amongst the free folk, saying this one may pass, this one may not. Peace means peace for all.

Why? Why on earth? Particularly, since The Weeper is clearly not a man to care about hostages. Also, Jon speaks of wildling oaths, but he never asked for/demanded any oaths. What he has with Tormund and Co. is a personal handshake agreement. I would have thought that given the momentous and unprecedented nature of their agreement public oaths in a weirdwood grove would have been in order.

As would have been clarification of the nature of their agreement - i.e. that it is between _NW_ and Tormund's people, not just Jon.

And again, Jon never explains how he proposes to feed even more wildlings beyond selling "wildling treasures", even after Marsh asks him a direct question. But the mountain clan chiefs remain skeptical :

"All the wealth o' the wildlings," said The Norrey. "That should buy you a bushel o' barleycorn. Two bushels, might be."

as do Marsh and Co. As would any reasonable person, really.

We are predisposed to think that Marsh's objections to having hostages trained at arms are absurd... but let's not forget Mance Rayder and Theon. Most times it works well and results in future alliance and integration... but when it fails, when a person you trained turns against you, they can really hurt you.

Jon is still right to insist on it, of course. But Marsh did have his some grounds for his objection.

Chapter XII

Almost everything of interest has been already noted, so, just a couple notes.

Dolorous Edd comes for a visit! And he has some interesting things to say:

"How do you find serving under Iron Emmett?" Jon asked.

"Mostly it's Black Maris serving under him, m'lord. Me, I have the mules. Nettles claims we're kin."

So, fraternization is already at full swing. And a Nettles? Could it be some allusion to TPaTQ?

Tearlessness = "winters's people"? Hardly. Lannisters aren't into public weeping and wailing either, except for Tommen, and it wasn't presented as a wholly good thing, IIRC.

more in wool and seal-skins, a few in rags. One was naked.

So, the wildlings spin and weave? Didn't expect that, somehow. And how on earth does a boy survive in snow and ice naked?

This time it was warriors who came forward. And not just one hundred of them. Five hundred, Jon Snow judged, as they moved out from beneath the trees, perhaps as many as a thousand.

In the previous chapter, when Jon visited Tormund's camp, he noted that there were 3 women and as many children for every man. It seems that Tormund hid most of his warriors from him until now.

And yea, as has been mentioned by other readers, all their promises and oaths are to Jon personally. Jon is really blind re: what it looks like to observers and what it means to the wildlings.

A man can fight the dead, but when their masters come, when the white mists rise up how do you fight a mist, crow? Shadows with teeth air so cold it hurts to breathe, like a knife inside your chest you do not know, you cannot know can your sword cut cold?"

Melisandre saw white mist rising in the caves which looked like Hardhome in one of her visions, fires going out and skulls. I very much suspect that she is right in her assertion that everybody there is doomed.

"Boars and wolves," said Tormund. "Best keep that beast o' yours locked up tonight.

Hm... Tormund was the one to fatefully suggest locking up of Ghost. I didn't remember that.

Oh and another thing that I didn't notice previously - 2/3 of the hostages have been sent on to Eastwatch and the Shadow Tower immediately. Which was pretty smart of Jon.

So, it is possible that situation on the Wall won't degenerate into a bloodbath following the Ides of Marsh.

[bemused]

Maia ..It helps if you look at Tormund's whole sentence .. :rolleyes: ;)

“Boars and wolves,” said Tormund. “Best keep that beast o’ yours locked up tonight. I’ll see that Borroq does the same with his pig.”

Tonight is not indefinitely., and we do see Borroq being careful to keep his boar away from the main activity until such time as he can move to another fort entirely. ( And later , I think Jon is wrong to attribute Ghost's behaviour to the boar.)

The Weeper may never agree to terms, but many of the people following him might, and every person saved is one less wight.

The only other point I want to address is that Bowen asking how Jon meant to pay for the food in front of Flint and Norrey is a set-up meant to embarrass him in front of them , or make him look like a "green boy"

Bowen absolutely must know that Jon has some arrangement with Tycho. He may even know the details since Jon left the contract on his table when he and Tycho went to eat. ( and we can be pretty sure Mully ,for one, has been reporting to Bowen ). For that matter , a good many people saw Jon approach Tycho and then go off to consult with him, and could conceivably put 2 and 2 together ... And so could Flint and Norrey , who can not only speak to people themselves , but the men they brought with them and the wetnurses probably also have their ears wide open.

[Julia H.]

So, the wildlings spin and weave? Didn't expect that, somehow. And how on earth does a boy survive in snow and ice naked?

Melisandre saw white mist rising in the caves which looked like Hardhome in one of her visions, fires going out and skulls. I very much suspect that she is right in her assertion that everybody there is doomed.

In the cave, Ygritte takes off "three woolen undershirts up over her head all at once". The wildlings are not prehistoric people wrapped in raw sheepskin and nothing else. It is realistic that they know how to make clothes of wool when sheep breeding is apparently an essential part of their economy. They are a nomadic people and nomadic peoples do have tools and they are even familiar with the basics of growing plants, but their economy is not based on these things. (The climate up there is not very good for agriculture anyway.) So the wildlings probably don't have professional weavers, but they know the technology and probably weave for themselves. If not, they must steal all their woolen clothes. If I remember correctly, they also have chariots and I don't know if they can steal and bring those things through the Wall.

The naked boy shows how bad things have become in the wildling camp and how vulnerable they are. (It does sound horrible that they let the boy go naked though.) IMO, it also indicates that the boy is an orphan. I guess the group of hostages may include a lot of orphans (as well as the sons of the chiefs). The purpose is not necessarily to deceive the NW but to take the opportunity to give these children a substitute "family". The NW will look after them.

Melisandre... Perhaps she tends to be right when she says something bad will happen and wrong when she predicts something good (like Arya turning up in CB). :frown5: But even Jon knows that the people there will be doomed sooner or later, the rescue mission is a race against time.

[bemused]

Maia .. we'll probably never agree on some of this stuff, and that's perfectly OK. GRRM will sort it out sooner or later :)

In the meantime , I don't know what makes you say Tormund was hiding the number of his warriors from Jon. Jon knew Tormund's estimate of the number of people with him (4000) which was exaggerated ;) of course. Bowen, the Counter-in-chief, made a more realistic estimate from observing the number of Tormund's fires from the top of the wall.

Jon knew the ratio of fighters to total number for the wildlings Stannis let through - roughly , a little less than 1/3 ( 300 out of 1000 est. ). Jon knows that in wildling society , the fighters are mixed in with the general poulation. There's no standing army in separate barracks or camps.. they still have to feed their families day to day ... So unless they're going into battle , on a scouting party , hunting , etc., they're with their families, in their tents , or what have you.

If roughly the same ratio applied here, and 2/3 of Tormund's people were women , children ,old folk , etc. of course they'd be more noticeable in his camp... If you're talking about Tormund's "rear guard" that came through at the end..that's a very, very small number out of 3000.. and they'd been fulfilling a very important duty. So I don't really see where any men were kept hidden... and if there turned out to be a few more than expected , that would only be a bonus to Jon, since he needs to man all the abandoned castles.

Flint and Norrey don't appear to agree with you on what makes Jon seem a "green boy", or to what extent they see him that way. That they don't quibble more, even when Jon returns to the subject of "all the wealth o' the wildlings" at the end of the meeting , says to me that they do have some inkling of an agreement with Tycho and are not outraged by it ... and I'm quite sure Bowen has had opportunity to find out exactly what the terms are.

Flint and Norrey will also know through their contacts, at least the general opinion of Marsh among the NW as a leader of men.. he is an unparalleled counter. He's obviously trying to undermine Jon's authority in front of them. I wonder what they thought of him ?

In fact, we don't know when Flint and Norrey left the wall , or if Jon had any further meetings with them. I'd be extremely surprised if he didn't. He knows the clans have been friends to the watch , and would be mindful of Ned's practice of treating them with respect.

I simply don't agree with the people who are continually saying that Jon should have explained more .. to Bowen ( who was never going to agree with anything Jon proposed anyway, unless Jon supported the Lannisters politically ,or did exactly what Bowen wished ) .. or to "the men" (each and every sworn brother ?) .. or to the Boltons ( to whom Jon was always a marked man as a "son" of Ned ). ... And I don't see the point in rehashing my reasons yet again. Yes, I think Jon's human and has made mistakes.. but his choices in regard to those options are not mistakes in my estimation.

As to the Weeper, Julia H has summed it up pretty well, I think . We know that some of the wildlings following Mance didn't like him or necessarily agree with him in all things..they just followed him because he was THE strong leader.. I suspect there are many who've joined with the Weeper since the battle, who would desert him in a minute if some better option was presented to them. ( They, too, are seeking safety first and foremost .)

There are so many possible explanations for the naked boy ( including faith in the gods to protect him.. a statement of how tough he is.. etc. etc.,on and on ) that unless and until anything more is said of him, it's impossible to know. ..e.g. we don't know how close he is to manhood , or what might be going through his mind, or the mind of whoever sent him... But he's one person among 3000 plus; I doubt he can be seen as any great threat, or a sign of general cruelty on the part of the free folk.

ETA: Sorry , site went down mid post , earlier .. I meant to add about Tormund's men that they might have been posted around the perimeters of the camp for safety.. or if "hidden", held back in case Jon didn't prove trustworthy..just a normal precaution. (As we see Jon take precautions at the wall 3 days later ) . As Mance pointed out, Jon and Tormund like each other, but neither one is a fool... and each of them ( Lord Commander and Father of Hosts ) must think of the welfare of those under their leadership.

And Tormund may just be doing the same thing as Jon , who only took a few men to the negotiations to demonstrate peaceful intent.

About Mel : She has lied before and I believe would lie to Jon about Hardhome in order to keep him close to her since she hopes to use him. And of course, she could be wrong.

[Julia H.]

A couple of posts were lost yesterday. What I said about the Weeper was that refusing him would mean refusing all the people who are with him and that Jon probably knows he has to keep a close eye on him if he comes over. I also said that the Watch operates with dangerous people all the time - former criminals, for example. There is always a risk, and that is true of hostages, but training hostages to fight is not more dangerous than keeping former criminals on the Wall. Even some of your Sworn Brothers may turn on you one day.

e22ddie46: Welcome and thanks. :)

[Maia]

In the meantime , I don't know what makes you say Tormund was hiding the number of his warriors from Jon.

Well, what I mean is this:

"Tormund's wildlings watched them pass, peering out from tents and lean-tos beneath leafless trees. For every man of fighting age, Jon saw three women and as many children, gaunt-faced things with hollow cheeks and staring eyes."

From what Jon saw in the camp after he hammered out an agreement with Tormund, men of fighting age to women and children were at 1 : 6 ratio. When they pass through the gates, it turnes out that warriors and spear-wives constituted more like 1:3 of the numbers.

IMHO, Tormund purposefully made his people look less dangerous and more piteous than they were, knowing that it would tug at Jon's humanitiarian instincts. Quite devious, IMHO.

That they don't quibble more, even when Jon returns to the subject of "all the wealth o' the wildlings" at the end of the meeting , says to me that they do have some inkling of an agreement with Tycho and are not outraged by it ... and I'm quite sure Bowen has had opportunity to find out exactly what the terms are.

Flint and Norrey don't quibble, no, but they also demonstrate that they don't believe that "wealth of the wildlings" can pay for the food needed. And they may have an inkling about Tycho's agreement, sure, but it may or may not be correct. Why play "broken telephone" with them and Bowen on the subject? Why not put it out into the open and reassure them?

Not to mention that between being cut off from resupply on land and the autumn storms, Jon would have needed to organize the buying and transportation of food ASAP, in order to avoid shortfalls anyway.

Also, there is this - Mel warned Jon against people who'd smile to his face and try to stab him in the back. Well, Bowen doesn't qualify, he has been increasingly unfriendly for some time. Nor do Selyse and her knights, who weren't friendly to begin with. The other assassin we see is a complete non-entity.

But the clan chiefs do seem friendly and for some reason it has been stressed that Norrey is very sly. They might also know from the Liddles that Bran and Rickon are alive.

I know that you think that they intend to support Jon - but what if they aren't? What if they saw Jon's insufficiently explained wildling venture as a danger to themselves and/or the Stark heirs and are somehow involved in Bowen's attack?

I mean, unless Mel was just plain wrong and this fortelling of hers meaningless, there are very few possible candidates for it and the clan chiefs are prominent among them.

He's obviously trying to undermine Jon's authority in front of them.

Eh, I don't see how Bowen asking Jon a very reasonable question about an issue that is of existential importance to the clan chiefs is undermining his authority? Particularly since he was in position to completely reassure them, but for some incomprehensible reason, chose not to?

I suspect there are many who've joined with the Weeper since the battle, who would desert him in a minute if some better option was presented to them. ( They, too, are seeking safety first and foremost .)

So, why not reach out to those people as well as or in preference to the Weeper? From what we have heard, Weeper is as bad as Ramsey Bolton and even other raiders consider him treacherous. Nor is he a man to be kept in check by hostages. He could, very easily, destroy what Jon is building up with Stannis's captives and Tormund's people.

I see yours and Julia H.'s point - sure, there are people with the Weeper, including civilians, whom Jon wants to save, but the Weeper is a big problem, that shouldn't be treated so cavalierly. A lot of northmen would want revenge on him, for one thing.

About Mel : She has lied before and I believe would lie to Jon about Hardhome in order to keep him close to her since she hopes to use him. And of course, she could be wrong.

I am pretty sure that we saw the vision in her PoV chapter, so it is a true one. And Tormund's talk about white mists associated with the Others, freezing mists who can't be fought only confirms it's significance. Sure, Mel can be wrong, but this is one of the cases where her vision and it's interpretation is confirmed from another source.

Whether the future is set or she just saw one possible future is an open question at this point, though. Personally, I hope that visions, prophecies, etc., are of one most likely future, but that they aren't wholly deterministic.

And yea, I have a somewhat different and more critical/cynical opinion on Jon's storyline than the one that prevails in this thread, but variety is the spice of life no?

[bemused]

Mel says herself that it's difficult to tell what will be from what may be. And we've seen her positively identify the towers by the sea as Eastwatch to impress Jon..when actually,she's very unsure. I feel sure she misinterprets skulls in the part of her vision that seems to show Bloodraven and Bran ... so who knows ?

in the last chapter I think we can identify at least two people among the NW who have always appeared friendly to Jon but seem to have aided the conspirators either willingly or through coercion, but I don't want to get ahead of the game, here.

Variety's fine :)

I don't think we can reach agreement on the scene with the clan chiefs, though. Bowen has at least a clue about the loan, and he should be leaving it up to the clan chiefs to ask their own questions.These aren't stupid men, and they're not known to be afraid of voicing their concerns .. but they also know how to keep their own counsel , when necessary.

Bowen's was not a reasonable question , IMO , but the question of a provocateur. He's hoping that Flint and Norrey will react negatively, hoping to muddy the waters and / or to force Jon to have to run his decisions past all and sundry and therefore appear indecisive . But F&N also know Jon has been consulting with Tycho and don't seem to need all the details. That's my variety.

[Kyoshi]

Hello, everyone. I love your analysis, Butterbumps! :cheers:

Jon's dreams are always interesting. As already mentioned, this dream seems to somehow link Jon to his supposed Targaryen heritage by showing Daenerys as well as Rhaegar-related imagery. The second link I see, and it's probably been mentioned somewhere given the depth with which posters on this forum approach these books, is that between Quaithe and Bloodraven.

While still in Pentos, having just told the Masters she'll give them Drogon in exchange for an Unsullied army, Quaithe appears to Daenerys and tells her:

"To go north, you must journey south. To reach the west, you must go east. To go forward you must go back, and to touch the light you must pass beneath the shadow."

The next day Daenerys unleashes her dragons, "conquering" Astapor, gaining an army, and essentially setting the groundwork for her fight against slavery--a major change that affects both her world and the world of those around her.

In this chapter Jon has a somewhat prophetic dream, when he wakes up it is to the day that the wildlings will pass through the gate and allowed to live south of the Wall without renouncing their gods or kneeling to a king not of their choosing--a major change that affects both his world and the world of those around him.

Someone noted this another thread (would give credit if I remembered who): Quaithe appears to Dany whenever she is making a big decision about her dragons--magical beings that are potentially essential in winning the war against the Others. I haven't started reading along similar lines when it comes to Jon and BR/Mormont's raven but I think the latter two might have the same kind of supernatural-warning/information-transfer relationship.

EDIT: my crackpot mind can't help but wonder about the magical nature of wildlings.

[Maia]

Hm, something that I have noticed - both shadowbinders and some of the wood witches (like Morna) wear wooden masks. Masks of the former are laquered (and painted?) and we weren't told from which wood they are made, the latter wear weirwood masks. Is there some commonality of magical tradition between them?

When Stannis asked Jon whether Mors Umber could be trusted several chapters back, Jon answered in the affirmative on the whole , but counseled Stannis to request an oath before a heart-tree from him. Yet, he himself didn't do the same when making his alliance with the widlings, even though he privately aknowledged in the past that some of them weren't completely trustworthy. And despite it being stressed many times that gods of the North and those of the wildlings are the same. Why is this? And IMHO, it was a mistake. Everything that could solemnize their agreement and underline commonality between the wildlings and the North should have been embraced.

Maester Harmune's message is not as clear as it appeared at the first sight, IMHO. It doesn't seem to imply that they themselves need help. Their ships are still afloat, after all, and sooner or later the storms will blow over. Rather, he says that sending more ships would be useless, methinks, particularly since the wildlings refuse to go abroad.

Bemused: skulls surrounding Bloodraven and Bran - well we know that they are literally surrounded by them, since there is that huge ossuary room with skulls positioned in the niches that Bran and Co. Had to cross to get to Bloodraven. So, yea, in this case it was just a very literal vision, while Mel accorded symbolic significance to it.

[bemused]

Maia.. yes, the masks are interesting , but so far , I don't think we know enough to be able to make a direct connection between Quaithe and Morna. Look at the wide variety of cultures that use masks ritually in our world ; some of the reasons for wearing masks may be the same , but with great differences in what is understood to lie behind them. It will be interesting to find out. :dunno:

As for swearing before a weirwood , I think it would have been a hassle and probably unnecessary . We know the weirwood grove is some distance from the wall , while Tormund's camp is very close. A lot of time would be wasted schlepping 3000 people out past the grove ,then having them swear in little groups before the weirwoods , then schlepping them back. From the wildling's perspective , I suspect it's entirely unnecessary. Nor would it do anything to reassure those at the wall , since they couldn't see it anyway .. If I'm right about Tormund and he does fit an Old Norse society pattern ... chieftains performed priestly functions for their tribes / followers , speaking to the gods for their people (Tormund Giantsbane , Speaker to Gods). .. Consequently , that he and Jon are drinking mead (which Tormund took care to provide) throughout the whole procedure, probably expresses sincerity before the gods to the wildlings. They are giving a solemn promise before the gods ..and "What Tormund swore , I swear" speaks volumes. We'll have to wait to see.

I think there are a number of clues to Tormund's pious / priestly side.. though the clues are all fairly vague , at this stage. However , that there's a similar treatment of Val has me convinced that those clues will add up in the next book. My neck is stuck well out on this and I'm willing to take the consequences.

Cotter Pyke and Maester Harmune have no need to send coded messages. If Pyke meant "send no more ships, no help needed", he ( of all people) would say so, outright. And Maester Harmune hasn't bothered to soften Cotter's words before (e.g., his letters mentioning Selyse).

In her POV chapter, Mel thought the wildlings were a doomed people and she may be right.. but in light of Jon's efforts to save them ,it may be that they're "doomed" to be assimilated, at least into northern Westerosi society. Mel seems to leap straight to an "annihilation" interpretation.

[Julia H.]

Being curious, I've reread the parts about Tormund's oath.

"Tormund has given me his oath. He will serve us until the spring. The Weeper and their other captains will swear the same or we will not let them pass."

"The gods of the North, since before the Wall was raised," said Jon. "Those are the gods that Tormund swore by. He will keep his word."

So Tormund has sworn an oath, and Jon expects the Weeper and other captains to do the same. Jon is doing exactly what he advised Stannis to do with regard to Mors Umber. He did not tell Stannis to have every one of Umber's men take an oath, only Umber. (It would be a rather impractical procedure anyway.) Jon wants the oath of the captains, the leaders of the wildlings, and that is probably in accordance with Westerosi tradition.

Bowen Marsh and others, however, dismiss the wildlings' oaths altogether as worthless (an oath can be broken) – and that is where Jon tells them about the terms concerning hostages.

Tormund's oath is mentioned not only by Jon, but also by Tormund and by some of the wildlings who voluntarily swear an oath to Jon.

A voluntary and more personal oath is probably worth more than an oath a group of people are collectively forced to take.

[Maia]

Julia.H:

Sure, Jon said that Tormund swore him an oath - though we didn't actually see it in their negotiation chapter. I can agree that he probably did. But that oath was not in front of a heart-tree. Yet, earlier Jon stressed the importance of an oath before a heart-tree in the matter of Mors Umbers' reliability. And he has certainly seen how important the old gods are to the wildlings when he observed all the carved faces made by them around Moletown. He could have taken Tormund and leaders of his people, as well as clan chiefs and selected NW representatives to the grove where NW makes it's vows. That would have had an advantage of bringing clarity and public awareness into what the the promises from each side actually entailed. YMMV.

I can also recall that there was some discussion concerning the question if female red priestesses are part of normal R'llor worship, and consequently whether Melisandre was a self-proclaimed one and/or came from a splinter sect.

I am now re-reading ADwD and in Tyrion's chapter in Volantis, he notices red priestesses on 2 separate occasions:

When Benerro preaches to the masses a number of priests, priestesses and acolytes stand on a terrace behind him.

And when Tyrion looks out of the window in the Merchant House and sees a red priestess surrounded by a dozen acolytes hurrying through the Fish Market.

So, it seems that even in Volantis red priestesses are a thing and Melisandre is not just a pretender/heretic. Or if she is, it is not due to her gender.

[Julia H.]

Maia:

Heart-trees are very important in the northern religion because they are associated with the old gods or because they are the old gods themselves (I won't go into this now), which means that the old gods themselves are also very important. We don't know when and how Tormund's oath takes place, only that it takes place off-page. If the oath must be taken in front of a heart-tree to be taken seriously, then it's reasonable to assume that Jon knows it and will make sure he and Tormund ride to the heart-trees. If the vow is powerful enough in a different location if it is sworn by the old gods, then the heart-tree may be left out for practical reasons (in the case of Tormund at least - Jon may want to be extra cautious with the Weeper).

Jon mentioning the heart-tree specifically in the case of Umber, instead of just the old gods may be

1. 
   

   an instruction to Stannis, a southerner, who may not know what counts as a valid vow in the North, but he would be safe enough if the vow were taken in front of a heart-tree;

   
   
   
2. 
   

   a synonym for the "old gods" referring to the most usual location of such a vow in the North;

   
   
   
3. 
   

   indicating that the vow in the North is strongest when taken in front of a heart-tree because that is where the old gods are the strongest – but it is still possible that north of the Wall the old gods are considered generally stronger than south of the Wall, so no vow that invokes them can be taken lightly even if the heart-trees are a bit further away in the forest;

   
   
   
4. 
   

   meant by Jon as a friendly reminder to Stannis that he'd better tolerate northern customs and religion if he wants to win over any northmen. In ASoS, Jon himself refused to swear fealty to Stannis because Stannis wanted him to burn the weirwood in Winterfell. Melisandre argued that an oath taken in front of a tree did not matter and perhaps Jon is pointing out now that it does and Stannis must accept it. But it does not necessarily mean that a vow sworn by the old gods is not valid in itself.

   
   
   

Tormund's vow is mentioned first by Jon, then referred to by Tormund and mentioned again by a wildling warrior, Brogg, "a man of few words", who swears "what Tormund swore". Tormund says his word is "strong as iron", but, of course, he would say that anyway. Brogg's words simply confirm that the wildlings know about Tormund's oath. The only occasion where the importance of the vow is discussed is the scene where Jon is talking about it.

"Tormund has given me his oath. He will serve us until the spring. The Weeper and their other captains will swear the same or we will not let them pass."

Old Flint shook his head. "They will betray us."

"The Weeper's word is worthless," said Othell Yarwyck.

"These are godless savages," said Septon Cellador. "Even in the south the treachery of the wildlings is renowned."

Leathers crossed his arms. "... I am no more savage than you crows. We have gods too. The same gods they keep in Winterfell."

"The gods of the North, since before the Wall was raised," said Jon. "Those are the gods that Tormund swore by. He will keep his word."

So the context where Tormund's vow is brought up is where Jon explains the terms of the agreement to his officers and the clan chiefs. Their opinion is that the wildlings' promises or oaths are useless because they are treacherous by nature (just like bastards, by the way) and godless. Leathers is offended and he points out that the wildlings do have gods and they are the same as those of Winterfell.

So even if Tormund had sworn an oath by a heart-tree, what they are discussing here is not the details or circumstances of the vow (which none of the opponents seems to be interested in), but whether the wildlings' oath can be trusted at all, and according to Leathers and Jon the wildlings's oaths are trustworthy because (contrary to what the septons says) they have gods. What is more, these gods are also worshipped in the Seven Kingdoms – even if they are not the gods of the septon or Marsh. The clan chiefs, however, probably also worship the olds gods, but they don't ask Jon about the heart-tree either. They are either satisfied that the oath was sworn by the gods of the North, or they are still not convinced that any kind of vow matters with the wildlings – we only know that they say nothing more about the subject. Marsh, on the other hand, keeps dismissing the vows, so Jon proceeds to talk about the hostages.

This discussion makes it clear that an oath sworn by the old gods is a valuable one, according to both Jon and Leathers (who is a wildling) and probably even according to the northern clan chiefs (who follow the same religion).

The oath was not witnessed by Marsh or the septon or the northern chiefs (it may have been witnessed by Leathers perhaps). But Marsh and the septon are not reassured by wildling vows anyway. They may not even be very eager to go north of the Wall in the current circumstances. After all, this is the same Marsh who would rather seal the gates forever and who opposed the idea that the six new recruits in ADwD were allowed to go to the weirwood grove to take their NW vows when they could have taken it in the sept just as well. The septon is obviously biased. They don't care about vows sworn by the old gods, nor do they realize the importance of heart-trees (or the importance of other people's gods). Even the clan chiefs apparently consider the hostages a much better idea than any vows, and it generally seems to be a much stronger argument south of the Wall than the vows taken by the wildling chiefs.

The wildlings themselves, however, are aware of Tormund's vow and they apparently acknowledge it. While we don't know the exact circumstances or wording of Tormund's vow, I don't see any reason why Jon (a northman and "half a wildling") would not understand what makes an oath valid among the wildlings. Until we find out otherwise, I will just trust that he knows and has acted accordingly.

[Tzalaran]

This lurker would greatly appreciate the conclusion of this re-read. your insights into this character arc have been very helpful to this aspiring writer, and i would very much like to read your thoughts on the final chapter in Jon's arc.

So, here's a polite bump on the re-read in an attempt to spur its conclusion...

[SeanF]

This lurker would greatly appreciate the conclusion of this re-read. your insights into this character arc have been very helpful to this aspiring writer, and i would very much like to read your thoughts on the final chapter in Jon's arc.

So, here's a polite bump on the re-read in an attempt to spur its conclusion...

It has been an excellent re-read. However, there is so much ground to cover in the final essay, that I think a delay is inevitable.