Bea Noleto Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 1. Oh, it wasn't clear at all. I did find a few things strange, but you never made it clear it was an alternative version rather than the original one with a couple of mistakes. 2. I listed some possible reasons in my previous post again. To sum it up: I think it was love and concern about a very unhappy brother. What she did may not be what everyone in her place would have done. But different people make different decisions. I don't see it out of character with what I know about Maege. 4. I most definitely did not say that. Someone else might, I did not. If you think I did, give me the quote. If you can't find it, I would appreciate an apology. By the way, your tone is getting rude. 1. Sorry. 2. I really don't know a lot a about Maege. If next time I read the books I see something in that way, I will change my mind. 4. If did say that, I will have to go back, prove it is you, quote, put in context, put an subjective impression in objective arguments in a foreign language, check spelling, grammar, and we are page 16 already. If you didn't, I will have to go back, read your post, look for whoever wrote what I think you wrote, apologize to you and perhaps answer someone else. Oh, God, I am so sorry, either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julia H. Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 1. Sorry. 2. I really don't know a lot a about Maege. If next time I read the books I see something in that way, I will change my mind. 4. If did say that, I will have to go back, prove it is you, quote, put in context, put an subjective impression in objective arguments in a foreign language, check spelling, grammar, and we are page 16 already. If you didn't, I will have to go back, read your post, look for whoever wrote what I think you wrote, apologize to you and perhaps answer someone else. Oh, God, I am so sorry, either way. Perhaps this was the post that you meant. It was written by Martin RR George, not by me. But I wonder, what is the punishment for newbie like Jon that attacks a master-at-arms with a knife? There were people saying that it is death. If that is right, then Jeor cut him a huge slack. It is hard to tell... Attempted murder is not the same as actual murder. If Jon had actually killed Thorne, there would be little doubt about what he could expect. Of course, a really strict commander could say that the attempt was capital offense, and anyway, Jon was stopped only by his friends. But would Mormont say that? On the one hand, teenage boys who spend all their days together will sometimes fight. It would not be a good idea to execute every single one who has got involved in a fight. On the other hand, Jon attacked an officer, causing a scandal during dinner. That must be an aggravating circumstance. Then again, Mormont knew what kind of person Thorne was, he also understood how Jon was feeling, so he would probably have taken the circumstances into consideration. Mormont also had to think of what message he would send to the others.... But then most brothers were on the Wall for a crime. Jon was a volunteer. He deserved a second chance, too. It was his first mistake, and he was very young, and he had talents the NW needed. All in all, I don't think Mormont would have executed Jon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordCommander_Samwell Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 People you're not getting it. He didn't just give him the sword as a "thanks" for saving him, He saw how he handled the situation with the white and realized that he was a worthy to be his successor. The sword his basically him saying that Jon is a man now not just "dude here's a bad ass sword". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veltigar Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 But blackfyre is and it disappeared right around the time BS escapes from heading to the wall. Take into account, both bastard swords, mormonts remark about the fire burning the silver on the pommel and crossguard just like blackfyre and if Jon is BR champion for house Targ then it makes sense given his ravens reaction to Jon's hesitation about taking the sword the bird almost shits itself to get Jon to take that sword.Longclaw was never longclaw but always Blackfyre and given Aemon and BR were both on the Wall, he left it in Aemons care and more than likely said he know who to give it to when the time was right, Aemon knew Jon was never Neds.He was waiting upon a sign and the wright, comet and Jon all appearing on the wall around the same time was his sign. I have entertained this theory as well. When TWOIAF came back I even reconsidered it, but in the end I do think it would be a disappointment to have things resolve this way. At the moment, I don't think GRRM has created sufficient build-up for the sword to mean anything really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 "The sword took the black" is probably one of the most eloquent ways I've seen this topic framed. And it works, as bringing the sword to the Wall was in essence an act of atonement: atonement for Jorah's crimes, atonement for Maege's family supplanting Jeor's through no fault of his own, atonement for Jeor losing his son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veltigar Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 "The sword took the black" is probably one of the most eloquent ways I've seen this topic framed. And it works, as bringing the sword to the Wall was in essence an act of atonement: atonement for Jorah's crimes, atonement for Maege's family supplanting Jeor's through no fault of his own, atonement for Jeor losing his son. That would have been an elegant solution. The sword is sent there as a placeholder for Ser Jorah, as a way to keep his seat warm more or less. A pity that we don't get any explanation like that in the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackfish Tully Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 That would have been an elegant solution. The sword is sent there as a placeholder for Ser Jorah, as a way to keep his seat warm more or less. A pity that we don't get any explanation like that in the book. I think that it's assumed . When something or someone is sent to the Wall they never come back . The Nights Watch is a one way deal . Once the sword is sent to the Wall it's now a possession of the Night's Watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 I think that it's assumed . When something or someone is sent to the Wall they never come back . The Nights Watch is a one way deal . Once the sword is sent to the Wall it's now a possession of the Night's Watch. Maege sent the sword to Jeor because there were (currently) no male Mormonts to wield it, with the implication that if a suitable heir came about, the sword would return. The idea that she would send it to the Wall as a donation to the Night's Watch, thereby robbing House Mormont of its treasured heirloom forever makes no sense. A future male Mormont would have every reason to demand the sword's return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veltigar Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 I think that it's assumed . When something or someone is sent to the Wall they never come back . The Nights Watch is a one way deal . Once the sword is sent to the Wall it's now a possession of the Night's Watch. I agree with Roose Boltons Pet Leech. Although, I do think it would have been an elegant solution (as I said earlier), I just don't think any groundwork has been laid for it. I think we'll just have to accept that GRRM probably didn't properly think this through. He needed a special sword for Jon and it presented itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackfish Tully Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Maege sent the sword to Jeor because there were (currently) no male Mormonts to wield it, with the implication that if a suitable heir came about, the sword would return. The idea that she would send it to the Wall as a donation to the Night's Watch, thereby robbing House Mormont of its treasured heirloom forever makes no sense. A future male Mormont would have every reason to demand the sword's return. where do you get this from? You are just completely making up something that does not exist in the text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Melnibonean Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Of course. Every high fantasy protagonist/hero needs a bitchin' sword. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackfish Tully Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 I agree with Roose Boltons Pet Leech. Although, I do think it would have been an elegant solution (as I said earlier), I just don't think any groundwork has been laid for it. I think we'll just have to accept that GRRM probably didn't properly think this through. He needed a special sword for Jon and it presented itself. what groundwork do you want? Jorah shamed the house and Marge sent the sword to the Nights Watch to make up for that shame, it seems pretty clear. It was not any ordinary crime that Jorah commited , The head of a House was engaged in slavery and the head of House Stark was coming for his head and he ran away from justice. That's a pretty big deal and a massive attack on house Mormonts honor . Sending the sword to the Nights Watch to wash out the stain of that dishonor seems like something they would do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veltigar Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 where do you get this from? You are just completely making up something that does not exist in the text. Well, there are no suitable male Mormonts. Maege has only daughters and her grandson is four (?). And that does seems to be the established practice when someone who isn't the Lord or scion wields the blade. Dawn always returns to Starfall and we are told that Lady Forlorn will return to the main branch when Lynn Corbray dies. It also makes sense given the enormous importance of these swords to different Westerosi Houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veltigar Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 what groundwork do you want? Jorah shamed the house and Marge sent the sword to the Nights Watch to make up for that shame, it seems pretty clear. It was not any ordinary crime that Jorah commited , The head of a House was engaged in slavery and the head of House Stark was coming for his head and he ran away from justice. That's a pretty big deal and a massive attack on house Mormonts honor . Sending the sword to the Nights Watch to wash out the stain of that dishonor seems like something they would do. No one is taking issue with sending the sword to the NW. That makes sense. What is odd is that nowhere it is stated when Jon has to return it to House Mormont. It just doesn't make sense given what we know from the books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackfish Tully Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Well, there are no suitable male Mormonts. Maege has only daughters and her grandson is four (?). And that does seems to be the established practice when someone who isn't the Lord or scion wields the blade. Dawn always returns to Starfall and Lady Forlorn will return to the main branch when Lynn Corbray dies. will it? how do you know that? what happens if Lyn Cordray has a son and gives it to him. The sword is Lyn's to do with as he pleases . He could give it to Jon Snow if he wants to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackfish Tully Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 No one is taking issue with sending the sword to the NW. That makes sense. What is odd is that nowhere it is stated when Jon has to return it to House Mormont. It just doesn't make sense given what we know from the books. What do we know from the books that makes this not make sense? House Mormont sent the sword to the Nights Watch , an organization that exists solely on donations and gifts , why would we assume that the sword will ever go back to House Mormont? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingelheim Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 What do we know from the books that makes this not make sense? House Mormont sent the sword to the Nights Watch , an organization that exists solely on donations and gifts , why would we assume that the sword will ever go back to House Mormont? Because Valyrian Swords are more important than anything in ASOIAF. Anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veltigar Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 will it? how do you know that? what happens if Lyn Cordray has a son and gives it to him. The sword is Lyn's to do with as he pleases . He could give it to Jon Snow if he wants to. Anyone with an e-reader care to check this? It's in AFFC, chapter 23 (Alayne). I think it explicitly mentions this. But even if it doesn't it just makes sense. These Valyrian steel blades are the most precious heirlooms of the Houses. Even impoverished Houses didn't want to sell them for a gigantic shitton of gold. If anyone could just give VS blades away without returning to the main branch, this would not be so much of a problem. And Tywin would surely have found some descendant of a brave knight to sell him a sword. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Maege sent the sword to Jeor because there were (currently) no male Mormonts to wield it, with the implication that if a suitable heir came about, the sword would return. My question then is: Why would Jeor give the sword to Jon if he had an implicit understanding with his sister that the sword would be taken back whenever a suitable family member turned up? Is Jeor going to go up to Jon one day and say, "Uh, I need that sword back, Alysane's son wants it"? Why would Maege bring it to the Wall at all if it would one day just be schlepped back? Oh, no one in the family is suitable to carry it now (which is odd in and of itself given women like Dacey and Alysane being in the family and the family's relaxed attitude toward gender roles)? Put the damn thing in storage then, don't send it to the Wall. Because Valyrian Swords are more important than anything in ASOIAF. Anything. Yes but I think that might be part of the point: Jorah's crime was heinous enough that the "forfeiture," if you will, to the Wall was an item of immense value. That's why sending it to the Wall carries such weight, because it is a thing of immense value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Anyone with an e-reader care to check this? It's in AFFC, chapter 23 (Alayne). I think it explicitly mentions this. But even if it doesn't it just makes sense. These Valyrian steel blades are the most precious heirlooms of the Houses. Even impoverished Houses didn't want to sell them for a gigantic shitton of gold. If anyone could just give VS blades away without returning to the main branch, this would not be so much of a problem. And Tywin would surely have found some descendant of a brave knight to sell him a sword. This, right here, is the problem with so many arguments on here. You assume that selling a family heirloom for money is the same as surrendering it or giving it as a gift as a matter of honor, gratitude and/or atonement. "The price of everything and the value of nothing." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.