Learning to lead III: the search for decisive actions, a re-read project of the Daenerys and Jon chapters from ADWD

[butterbumps!]

I consider it an absolute crime that we never got to see Selyse's interactions with Cotter Pyke, let alone got to read Pyke's letters about Selyse.

Beautiful post. Indeed, it is a crime we don't see their interactions. I'd imagine Cotter's correspondence to Jon would give the "Funny Fake Letters" a run for their money (has anyone written one for this, btw?). I like the connection of Titan of Braavos and the presence of Wun Wun.

To bring the focus back to leadership, I think Jon represents Ned's legacy. Tywin and Ned stand as contrasting icons of fear and love in leaders. I think that their legacies are also being contrasted especially with the Red Wedding. It is the ultimate fear move with short term gain but also long term consequences-- fear dies with you but love lives on. I think the Stark loyalty Alys is showing is one small piece of Martin's larger commentary on the fear vs love ruling philosophies and this may or may not be further enforced when we get to the Alys marriage chapter.

I love this part, and I'm so glad you brought up Bran's interactions with the Liddles regarding the North's view of the Starks. I think it's really important to understand the underlying "philosophies" of the North as it pertains to the view of the Starks, who I understand enjoy their seat in Winterfell because of good service, fulfillment of responsibilities and respect for their clans and bannermen. Btw, I sent you a PM for a new thread.

[Lummel]

I think this right here encapsulates the heart of why Jon, very rightly, refuses to go down the path of being indebted to Melisandre...

I like Tze on how you tie Jon as personal collatoral to the Corn King theme, certainly a twist on seed capital :) and the man negotiating with the titan is a good catch too.

Breaking down your point about what Tycho might know about Jon he would know that he is a Stark and would be aware of their reputation which points to Ragnarok's point below and also that he is young and presumably likely to be in office for a long time.

I agree with Tagganaro about the role of wood. Certainly if I were Tycho and looking to explain the advantage of the deal to the rest of the Iron Bankers then I would be talking in terms of the potential for economic colonialisation and turning Eastwatch into an emporium to exploit the timber resources of the east coast. However given the tenor of Jon's last meeting with Bowen Marsh I can't see Marsh as being enthuastic about the Watch taking on this debt.

Amusing that Melisandre is to Selyse as she herself was to Jon - having to go to the more powerful person as a supplicant.

...This theme continues with Manderly's granddaughter and her The Promise speech, followed by Manderly's bargain with Davos. It isn't just the Red Wedding, the North remembers Lady Hornwood's fingers an exclusively Bolton act. Alys was betrothed to a Hornwood. As dramatic of a reveal as Manderly/Davos was, Martin escalates it with the Frey Pies and it is still building. I think Alys is one more piece of this larger theme.

To bring the focus back to leadership, I think Jon represents Ned's legacy. Tywin and Ned stand as contrasting icons of fear and love in leaders. I think that their legacies are also being contrasted especially with the Red Wedding. It is the ultimate fear move with short term gain but also long term consequences-- fear dies with you but love lives on. I think the Stark loyalty Alys is showing is one small piece of Martin's larger commentary on the fear vs love ruling philosophies and this may or may not be further enforced when we get to the Alys marriage chapter.

There are two things there I'll pick up on.

First the context. There's a whole web of interconnections Karstark-Hornwood-Stark and so on that work against Roose and are potentially there for Jon to take advantage of. This is the precise opposite of Daenerys' situation where established relationships at the elite level in Slaver's Bay and surrounds count against her.

The big issue is Machiavelli's whether it is better for a ruler to be feared rather than loved - Machiavelli comes down in favour of fear but GRRM rates love more highly for long term loyalty. Jon certainly can be loved - but only in the North. Daenerys can be feared on account of her dragons but can she inspire love in Westeros?

[Ser Pollo Loco]

I like Tze on how you tie Jon as personal collatoral to the Corn King theme, certainly a twist on seed capital :) and the man negotiating with the titan is a good catch too.

Breaking down your point about what Tycho might know about Jon he would know that he is a Stark and would be aware of their reputation which points to Ragnarok's point below and also that he is young and presumably likely to be in office for a long time.

I agree with Tagganaro about the role of wood. Certainly if I were Tycho and looking to explain the advantage of the deal to the rest of the Iron Bankers then I would be talking in terms of the potential for economic colonialisation and turning Eastwatch into an emporium to exploit the timber resources of the east coast. However given the tenor of Jon's last meeting with Bowen Marsh I can't see Marsh as being enthuastic about the Watch taking on this debt.

Amusing that Melisandre is to Selyse as she herself was to Jon - having to go to the more powerful person as a supplicant.

There are two things there I'll pick up on.

First the context. There's a whole web of interconnections Karstark-Hornwood-Stark and so on that work against Roose and are potentially there for Jon to take advantage of. This is the precise opposite of Daenerys' situation where established relationships at the elite level in Slaver's Bay and surrounds count against her.

The big issue is Machiavelli's whether it is better for a ruler to be feared rather than loved - Machiavelli comes down in favour of fear but GRRM rates love more highly for long term loyalty. Jon certainly can be loved - but only in the North. Daenerys can be feared on account of her dragons but can she inspire love in Westeros?

My guess for Dany is no, mostly due to circumstance, Aegon is going to beat her to the punch for allies in the Reach, she probably lost Dorne with Quentin, and Westeros will be tired of war (and possibly plague), and she's arriving with a foreign army. Disagree about Jon, but its more of a Stark thing than a personal thing, the North, Riverlands, and Vale seem to have a connection/love for the Starks and Jon/Sansa/Bran have a connection to the west through Tyrion.....and maybe a connection to the iron isles if the Asha/Theon end up winning which is possible if Vic and Euron bite the dust

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Personal feelings aside, I still think that Jon's duty, once Mance was unveiled, was to call for Edd to fetch him a block. He's LC of the Night's Watch, isn't he? Mance Rayder is a Night's Watch deserter. I don't remember anybody to adress this issue. Or did the rule change? I must have missed it. :dunno:

But Jon didn't have the authority to execute Mance. Mance is Stannis' prisoner, not the prisoner of the Watch. Therefore, it is Stannis, or his officers, call what to do with him.

In this situation, it is Melisandres decision. Jon may ask her to execute Mance, but he can't demand it. She is no part of his command.

[Fire Eater]

I like Tze on how you tie Jon as personal collatoral to the Corn King theme, certainly a twist on seed capital :) and the man negotiating with the titan is a good catch too.

Breaking down your point about what Tycho might know about Jon he would know that he is a Stark and would be aware of their reputation which points to Ragnarok's point below and also that he is young and presumably likely to be in office for a long time.

I agree with Tagganaro about the role of wood. Certainly if I were Tycho and looking to explain the advantage of the deal to the rest of the Iron Bankers then I would be talking in terms of the potential for economic colonialisation and turning Eastwatch into an emporium to exploit the timber resources of the east coast. However given the tenor of Jon's last meeting with Bowen Marsh I can't see Marsh as being enthuastic about the Watch taking on this debt.

Amusing that Melisandre is to Selyse as she herself was to Jon - having to go to the more powerful person as a supplicant.

There are two things there I'll pick up on.

First the context. There's a whole web of interconnections Karstark-Hornwood-Stark and so on that work against Roose and are potentially there for Jon to take advantage of. This is the precise opposite of Daenerys' situation where established relationships at the elite level in Slaver's Bay and surrounds count against her.

The big issue is Machiavelli's whether it is better for a ruler to be feared rather than loved - Machiavelli comes down in favour of fear but GRRM rates love more highly for long term loyalty. Jon certainly can be loved - but only in the North. Daenerys can be feared on account of her dragons but can she inspire love in Westeros?

Actually Machiavelli wrote The Prince as a form of satire. I don't think he favored rule by fear.

Fear is for your enemies, but love is for your subjects. It all comes down to "the sins of the fathers." Tywin ruled by fear, and when he died Connington, the Martells and everyone else he wronged is taking revenge on his children and grandchildren.

Jon has plenty of Ned in him, but he benefits from being more realistic and pragmatic in politics.

[Tagganaro]

Looking only at her circumstances the Stark legacy influence on is Alys far from clear. One could argue that she chose Jon over the Umbers or the Mountain Clans even though Robb beheaded her father but that isn't nearly conclusive and her Stark praise could be flattery given her life is on the line.

This also sits on top of a good deal of other Stark build up. Back in ASoS

He clearly knows exactly who Bran is and what Bran is worth if he betrays him. He's clear about how he feels regarding both Stark and Bolton rule, but also highly pessimistic regarding the Stark's future. Still he leaves the food folded up neatly, as if with care.

Aside from the inherent praise in Ned's girl we have his take on the Boltons:

Bathing in Bolton blood is his real world substitute for the fantasy of a never ending summer and a castle in the clouds. Both circumstances show extreme loyalty to the Starks, a sacrifice for the Starks, and highly negative Bolton sentiments.

This theme continues with Manderly's granddaughter and her The Promise speech, followed by Manderly's bargain with Davos. It isn't just the Red Wedding, the North remembers Lady Hornwood's fingers an exclusively Bolton act. Alys was betrothed to a Hornwood. As dramatic of a reveal as Manderly/Davos was, Martin escalates it with the Frey Pies and it is still building. I think Alys is one more piece of this larger theme.

To bring the focus back to leadership, I think Jon represents Ned's legacy. Tywin and Ned stand as contrasting icons of fear and love in leaders. I think that their legacies are also being contrasted especially with the Red Wedding. It is the ultimate fear move with short term gain but also long term consequences-- fear dies with you but love lives on. I think the Stark loyalty Alys is showing is one small piece of Martin's larger commentary on the fear vs love ruling philosophies and this may or may not be further enforced when we get to the Alys marriage chapter.

There are two things there I'll pick up on.

First the context. There's a whole web of interconnections Karstark-Hornwood-Stark and so on that work against Roose and are potentially there for Jon to take advantage of. This is the precise opposite of Daenerys' situation where established relationships at the elite level in Slaver's Bay and surrounds count against her.

The big issue is Machiavelli's whether it is better for a ruler to be feared rather than loved - Machiavelli comes down in favour of fear but GRRM rates love more highly for long term loyalty. Jon certainly can be loved - but only in the North. Daenerys can be feared on account of her dragons but can she inspire love in Westeros?

I think these 2 quotes are a great springboard to discuss Jon's role as King of the wildlings. We should actually discuss this question I think: How does Jon's leadership of the wildlings relate to his leadership of the NW? Is he shirking his NW duties by getting involved in this?

That being asked, I'll try my best to answer it.

First, I'm going to begin with the idea that, unquestionably, it is better to be loved than feared. I actually think Machiavelli and GRRM are on the same page here: Being loved is better than being feared. This is a more scholarly argument lol, but it is highly assumed by many (and I'm inclined to agree) that The Prince is a work of satire and does not reflect Machiavelli's true feelings on the matter. His other work Discourse on Livy is very pro-Rebublic and much more comprehensive and well-argued in my opinion. It's also important to keep in mind that Machiavelli was writing The Prince to suck up to World-class Prick Cesare Borgia, one of the worst people of the 15th/16th century- The apple did not fall far from the tree in that regard.

Anyway, to get back to Jon, I'd argue that what we're seeing with his leadership of the wildlings is that idea in motion. Jon has taken compassion to a different level than these wildlings have ever experienced in my opinion. I'll use 2 quotes from Leathers and Val to illustrate this right now.

Leathers (in the vow at the weir wood chapter)

Jon took Leathers aside. "Take charge of him. You speak his tongue. See that he is fed and find him a warm place by the fire. Stay with him. See that no one provokes him."

"Aye." Leathers hesitated. "M'lord."

The living wildlings Jon sent off to have their wounds and frostbites tended.

Val- in the 2nd to last chapter we have recently read on Jon:

"You have my thanks, Lord Snow. For the half-blind horse, the salt cod, the free air. For hope."

I like these two quotes to show what kind of impact Jon is having on the wildlings. He's connecting with them, showing compassion for them, giving them hope in the absence of Mance. And in turn they are putting their trust in him. Not only is he in a position of strength as LC of the NW and as a son of Eddard Stark, he's also getting them to love him, without even realizing it actually. Which is pretty remarkable when you think about it- He's not even doing this on purpose to gain their trust and gain power out of it, and I think that shows. He generally cares for them as human beings.

Now, I'm gonna turn to a broader argument as expressed by GRRM throughout the books. As Ragnorak has beautifully expounded on, and I agree, Ned and Tywin and therefore the Starks and Lannisters are almost represented as polar opposites. Let's look at what their leadership has gained them- Ned and Tywin both dead, who has the better legacy? Listen to these people talk about the Starks, their loyalty to them. Compare that to what with Tywin and the Lannisters?

Alys Karstark, Wyman Manderley, the Hill Lords, the Liddle Bran met in ASOS, the Hill Lords at the Wall with Jon (for a later chapter), the Glovers...In fact, there's really not one family that actually and legitimately supports the Boltons. Even Lady Dustin is highly suspect- She doth protest too much imo. Heck, even the wildlings show some kind of reverence towards the Starks (the ones at the wierwood grove, the washerwomen with Mance, Mance himself, Ygritte, etc.)

Is there really that kind of loyalty with the Lannisters remaining? The fact is, fear might be powerful, but it's not a lasting legacy. Once the feared person dies his empire comes crashing down right around him. Because no one is afraid of his memory. They might love the memory (like the Ned) and try to make it proud, but they won't fear it.

So I'd argue that what we're seeing with Jon is the Ned's legacy, and Jon taking the Ned's lessons to heart, and they're paying off at least with the wildlings. It's an interesting thing to look at and I'd love to explore it further with Dany as well (although it seems to be having the opposite effect in her case). Even Roose seems to favor GRRM's approach when he admonishes Ramsay for this very thing.

[Spiderweaves]

In the famous "love versus fear" chapter in The Prince, Machiavelli ultimately concludes that the key thing for leaders to do is avoid being hated (search for CHAPTER XVII, http://www.gutenberg...32-h/1232-h.htm). If you can remain hate-free without having people fear you, great, but most of the time, that will not be the case.

Machiavelli also stresses how leaders must be seen to stay true to their words, no matter what. They also must take a decisive side regarding their allies and foes.

From a Machiavellian perspective, then, Jon is in deep trouble Many of his Black Brothers already hate him, he's an oath-breaker, and he's perhaps a little too cozy with the Wildlings. His compassion towards them leaves him open to attacks on his loyalty.

Machiavelli's all about getting power and keeping it--I'm not sure this has ever been Jon's desire. When I think about it this way, Jon doesn't seem to have much of a chance for long-term leadership.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

<snip>

Haven't we concluded that The Prince was satire?

So what you're saying is that Jon should disregard his oath to protect the "realms of men" just to keep up the appearance that he's not "cozy" with the wildlings? Because the wildlings are men too. Jon was smart enough to figure it out — should he have to cater to the lowest common denominator? I see the criticism of Jon's treatment of the wildlings as being FAR more indicative of the character of those criticizing him (or lack thereof) than of Jon's character or his leadership qualities.

[Spiderweaves]

I don't personally think The Prince is intended as satire, but I get how people can read it that way.

Jon was smart enough to figure it out — should he have to cater to the lowest common denominator?

No, of course he shouldn't. I'm thinking about other characters' perceptions (especially those who are supposed to follow him) of him and his leadership. The NW is heavily made up of LCD-type folk.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I don't personally think The Prince is intended as satire, but I get how people can read it that way.

It is satire.

No, of course he shouldn't. I'm thinking about other characters' perceptions (especially those who are supposed to follow him) of him and his leadership. The NW is heavily made up of LCD-type folk.

But if it's on the part of other people and their perceptions, why should he do something that's morally wrong — leaving thousands of people to die — just to keep up appearances?

Many people who are culturally and/or socially ahead of their time are despised and even assassinated by people who disagree with them and their mission. That doesn't make them any less right.

[Spiderweaves]

I think maybe I don't understand the nature of this thread.

All I was trying to do was offer a brief critique of Jon's leadership style from within the pages of the book and incorporate some external political theory into it.

What I as a person think about his leadership--whether I like it, approve of it, support it or not--wasn't the point of the thread, I thought. If it is, okay then. I'll know better from now on.

[Winterfellian]

Wow! This thread is getting away from me. Thank you Butterbumps for the great review!

Am posting a little bit late but here are some of the points I found interesting in this chapter.

BARGAINING

I think this represents a very contrasting point between Jon and Dany. After his meeting with Tycho Jon reflects that they are both quite unhappy with their arrangement but thought that a good sign. As unhappy as he claims to be it is clear he’s somehow content with the deal. After all, he got what he wanted. Compare this to Dany’s feelings after her “peace bargain”. In her chapter we are told just how unhappy she is with it even though she technically also got what she wanted. The real difference is that the counterpart, the slavers, are actually quite content to the point to even rub it in her face. Is very clear Jon was the most successful here.

However I don’t feel this is because of any superior skills of bargaining he might have over Dany but rather to the fact that he took a proactive role whereas Dany a completely passive one leaving it all to Hizdahr. Jon’s bargain is completely his making because he made a point of carrying it out personally as was his duty as LC instead of leaving it to someone else like the first steward or the first builder. Dany’s peace bargain was a deal between her husband and the slavers in where she was just a pretty dragon figure and no more. I wonder if had Dany been less unhappy with her own bargain had she had more to say in it.

I find the different approach they took here very interesting. They were both caught between a rock and a hard place but Jon by taking a participating role managed to do better than Dany did. I know part of Dany’s reason is that she’s getting tired of Mereen, but still, the city is her responsibility as she willingly took the job unlike Jon who had the LC job trusted upon him.

Trust put into one’s decisions:

One interesting point I came across in this chapter is how much Jon wages his life on his decisions. This is one of his finest points as leader even though it may be downplayed a lot. Not many see this but Jon willing to stake his life over some of his choices transmits a confidence as a leader that I have seen in few characters and that constitutes a real power trapping of its own more powerful than any floppy ears and retinues he might acquire. Tragically some of his subjects like Marsh fail to recognize this and are more impressed by empty gestures and said floppy ears than by the real thing.

My reason for stating the above is that as Tze pointed out earlier when an institution fails to pay the Iron Bank they usually go after the leader not the institution itself so Jon may very well be waging his life and not the credit of the Night’s Watch.

This isn’t the first case of Jon risking his life over one of his decisions as a leader. Choosing to give Mance a merciful death and sending Val away are two cases in which he is risking himself a beheading courtesy of Stannis but he did it anyway because he knew it was the right thing. Should he fail in any of this instances is his head that will roll first more likely and not one of his subordinates

Yet we sometimes see people posting how he has never made a hard decision in his life. :dunno:

For modern eyes, I think that the way Selyse comes across is meant to come across as pompous, and furthers our sympathies toward Jon, who we know has more pressing business than entertaining a queen’s expectations of display.

Butterbumps, I really like the observation you make here because this same comparison can also be applied to all of the slavers and the like Dany has met in her travels. Selyse and her retinue of southron fools are as disagreeable as the Mereeseene and the rest of the slavers therefore we as a reader can have a more favourable opinion of both J&D. The problem for me is that Dany’s antagonists have all been of this kind whereas Jon has interacted with more fleshed out and interesting characters.

[Lummel]

I think these 2 quotes are a great springboard to discuss Jon's role as King of the wildlings. We should actually discuss this question I think: How does Jon's leadership of the wildlings relate to his leadership of the NW? Is he shirking his NW duties by getting involved in this?...

I agree it is something to discuss...when we get to that point. So far in Jon IX there are only a very small number of Wildlings under his command some of whom have taken the oath. At this stage I'm not sure if there is enough to say for sure how those Wildlings view Jon and view their relationship with him.

However your points about compassion and hope do strengthen the parallels between the wildlings and the ex-slaves for me, Daenerys offers them compassion and hope too and again the emotional element of the relationship is important and along with the high expectations perhaps the critical point. But casting Daenerys and Jon as saviour figures isn't a mutually agreed contract with a defined set of expectations that the leader is signed up to. It's more of a psychological contract - with huge expectations placed upon the saviour figure that they themselves are only dimly aware of, and as Lyanna Stark mentioned when we discussed the Mother as an archetype of leadership the potential demands, expectations and responsibilities placed upon a saviour figure could be unending.

I'm not sure how much Jon is building on The Ned's legacy in his relations with the wildlings - though I think he is with Alys Karstark and Tycho, maybe Stannis (any others?). Certainly the Stark family name carries some weight north of the Wall, but Jon is having to reform that relationship and build something different even if there is already a foundation of respect.

...BARGAINING

I think this represents a very contrasting point between Jon and Dany. After his meeting with Tycho Jon reflects that they are both quite unhappy with their arrangement but thought that a good sign. As unhappy as he claims to be it is clear he’s somehow content with the deal. After all, he got what he wanted. Compare this to Dany’s feelings after her “peace bargain”. In her chapter we are told just how unhappy she is with it even though she technically also got what she wanted. The real difference is that the counterpart, the slavers, are actually quite content to the point to even rub it in her face. Is very clear Jon was the most successful here.

However I don’t feel this is because of any superior skills of bargaining he might have over Dany but rather to the fact that he took a proactive role whereas Dany a completely passive one leaving it all to Hizdahr. Jon’s bargain is completely his making because he made a point of carrying it out personally as was his duty as LC instead of leaving it to someone else like the first steward or the first builder. Dany’s peace bargain was a deal between her husband and the slavers in where she was just a pretty dragon figure and no more. I wonder if had Dany been less unhappy with her own bargain had she had more to say in it.

I find the different approach they took here very interesting. They were both caught between a rock and a hard place but Jon by taking a participating role managed to do better than Dany did. I know part of Dany’s reason is that she’s getting tired of Mereen, but still, the city is her responsibility as she willingly took the job unlike Jon who had the LC job trusted upon him...

That's a good point on bargaining. Hizdahr dumps the peace with Yunkai in Daenerys' lap as a done deal and they certainly seem to have come out on top. The only things they don't get are Daenerys' head on a plate or slavery restored inside the city walls of Meereen. Equally Daenerys couldn't make a deal with the Yunkai unless she had defeated them in battle - she has no credibility with them.

What is interesting is the power reversal between Hizdahr and Daenerys between the intial meeting when she offered herself as the prize for peace and now.

[butterbumps!]

For all interested parties, Ragnorak and I wrote up a new thread to discuss the issue of "oathbreaking," neutrality of the NW, and whether the NW should get involved in Northern affairs: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/71537-the-watch-takes-no-part-analyzing-jons-oathbreaking/

[Tagganaro]

I agree it is something to discuss...when we get to that point. So far in Jon IX there are only a very small number of Wildlings under his command some of whom have taken the oath. At this stage I'm not sure if there is enough to say for sure how those Wildlings view Jon and view their relationship with him.

Hey, I didn't mention anything that hasn't already happened in the chapters we reviewed Lummel :cool4: . I just thought it was worth mentioning how we have both Leathers & Val's views as surrogates for the wildlings views, and considering Val is on her way to Tormund and probably talking about these very things I thought it was time to take stock of it- Especially in the context of the discussion of Compassion v. Fear and how that relates to leadership.

I have too much respect for you and this thread to intentionally derail it lol.

However your points about compassion and hope do strengthen the parallels between the wildlings and the ex-slaves for me, Daenerys offers them compassion and hope too and again the emotional element of the relationship is important and along with the high expectations perhaps the critical point. But casting Daenerys and Jon as saviour figures isn't a mutually agreed contract with a defined set of expectations that the leader is signed up to. It's more of a psychological contract - with huge expectations placed upon the saviour figure that they themselves are only dimly aware of, and as Lyanna Stark mentioned when we discussed the Mother as an archetype of leadership the potential demands, expectations and responsibilities placed upon a saviour figure could be unending.

This is a good point. I'd like to see/make a post comparing the 2 opposing groups of people under Jon/Dany and how they might view things and compare and contrast: For Jon the NW traditional/elite and the wildlings, For Dany the Slaver elite and the freedmen. There's certainly a lot of comparison.

I'm not sure how much Jon is building on The Ned's legacy in his relations with the wildlings - though I think he is with Alys Karstark and Tycho, maybe Stannis (any others?). Certainly the Stark family name carries some weight north of the Wall, but Jon is having to reform that relationship and build something different even if there is already a foundation of respect.

Yes, I should have said "Stark" legacy, not just the Neds. I'd like to explore this more with a later post. I have an idea in mind but need some textual support for it before I post it.

[Arya Targaryen]

What happened to this topic? No posts today? :box:

But Jon didn't have the authority to execute Mance. Mance is Stannis' prisoner, not the prisoner of the Watch. Therefore, it is Stannis, or his officers, call what to do with him.

In this situation, it is Melisandres decision. Jon may ask her to execute Mance, but he can't demand it. She is no part of his command.

The whole Mance situation reminds me of some legal issues: If you do something but under a different name, it still counts, doesn't it? I mean the following:

Ramsey and Arya got married. But it's Jeyne, not Arya, so she is the wife and not Arya, even though she used a different name. Ramsey, even if he didn't know about the fakeArya, would be now wed to Jeyne, since she was there at the wedding.

Jon Snow swore an oath. But if he turns out to be Jon Targaryen instead? I still think, that because HE swore an oath, it would still bind him.

Now Mance:

Stannis gave Rattleshirt to Jon, to do with him whatever he liked. Obviously Jon wasn't impressed at all, he didn't want to use Rattleshirt anyway. But it's Mance! Even if Stannis thinks it's Rattleshirt, he pointed at the man, saying: I gave him to you... So that would mean, Jon can do whatever he wants with Mance - like keeping him alive. And Stannis can't say a word. Because he is the King, and he has the authority to release him from a death sentence. Jon can actually take advantage of that.

It's a bit... shaky, I know, I know. :dunno:

[Lyanna Stark]

I don't personally think The Prince is intended as satire, but I get how people can read it that way.

For what it's worth, I liked your input and I have the same view as you: that this thread is a place to try and discuss and compare aspects of Jon's and Dany's leadership roles without turning into yet another "love/hate" thread since those are not really interesting.

No, of course he shouldn't. I'm thinking about other characters' perceptions (especially those who are supposed to follow him) of him and his leadership. The NW is heavily made up of LCD-type folk.

I'd be interested in reading more if you'd care to expand on what you already wrote. Machiavelli seems to promote a more Tywinesque type of ruler. Satire or not, it has still had a lot of influence on how people view leadership and the theories around it, else it would not be trotted out as an example as often as it is.

Jon has the difficult situation which Dany also finds herself in where he has part of the people he rules (the ones who want to "conserve" what has been) distrust his motives, while he is a giver of hope to others. The first faction will try and work against them, and the second will make demands, will "guilt trip" the leaders and will act as a constant reminder of their rather heavy responsibilities.

Both of them can either choose to ally with one of these factions, but that means the other will complain, make trouble and possibly rebel, or join the enemy. They both need to appease and both fail at doing so, in the face of increasing desperation.

[Punchslap]

What happened to this topic? No posts today? :box:

I think everyone went over to the "take no part" thread when it was created to remove that issue from this thread.

[Lummel]

... I just thought it was worth mentioning how we have both Leathers & Val's views as surrogates for the wildlings views, and considering Val is on her way to Tormund and probably talking about these very things I thought it was time to take stock of it- Especially in the context of the discussion of Compassion v. Fear and how that relates to leadership...

It seems to me that that there is a real difference between those Wildlings that came through the Wall in response to Stannis' offer and those who will come through the Wall in response to Jon and that we have to be careful to distinguish between the two groups. Stannis opens up the field here but jon takes it in a distinctly different direction. I just want to be careful that we discuss this in the right place and in the right time.

[Lummel]

Well Ladies and Gentlemen, here we are, approaching the end of this re-read as the sun rises on:

Daenerys IX

Overview

The sky is blue and cloudless. Daenerys bathes until she is as clean as she can be. Then she is dressed in light clothing. A yellow tokar and red veils to hide the blood, for today the wedding celebrations continue with the grand reopening of the Colosseum.

Barristan boldly shares his worries about the security arrangements, passes on a message from Quentyn and finally discusses the release of Meris and how she offered the Tattered Prince's support if Daenerys would assist him to take Pentos, an offer that Daenerys, thinking of her constant supporter and completely trustworthy ally Illyro, declines. The drummers beating out BOMM, BOMM remind me of Tywin's funeral as Daenerys and Hizdahr progress through the city. A fallen litter blocks their way and Daenerys commands that the injured be assisted. Since the bearers aren't beaten to death Daenerys and Hizdahr exchange words over the small improvements in Meereenese life that Daenerys has caused.

Inside the Colosseum Hizdahr has arranged a well appointed and supplied box for the happily married couple to watch the jolly spectacle. Daenerys notes the seating is divided strictly on class lines. The crowds of the wealthy and powerful shouting “Mother, Mother” contrasts bitterly with the shouts of the freed slaves in ASOS. Daenerys watches a series of acts of butchery, pausing to save a pair of comic jousting dwarves from being eaten by lions while Strong Belwas tucks in to a big bowl of sweet and spicy roast locusts. Finally, in a treat for all sports fans, a near naked woman takes on a wild boar with a knife and learns the same lesson that King Bob learnt back in Westeros. As Daenerys throws off her rabbit ears, determined to go home, Strong Belwas starts to vomit and the skies darken as for a second time in ADWD Drogon makes a major narrative impact.

And Daenerys and Drogon fly away.

Observations

“soon Dany was as clean as she was ever going to be” - some things can't be washed away so easily as we see in this chapter

“No lions”...”Not one, Magnificence? Where is the fun in that” - there's quite a bit of humour in this chapter, although the sharp exchanges between Daenerys and Hizdahr seem to show that marriage is a continuation of war by other means...

Analysis

rabbit ears

She wears yellow silk which is light and cool and the red veils. There are some further mentions of colour in relation to staus at the fighting pits, the Yunkai are also in yellow. Daenerys throwing off her rabbit ears at the end of the chapter is in the context of the reread a pretty clear symbol...Interestingly we see that the pyramids are also coloured so perhaps the colour of your tokar would normally reflect your family allegiance?

Illyrio

So at this stage she still remembers Illyrio and thinks of him positively. If in TWOW she should happen to discuss him with Tyrion and learns of how he has secretly been preparing Aegon in the wilderness I wonder if the Tattered Prince's offer will suddenly become more tempting?

baby steps

“Those bearers were slaves before I came. I made them free. Yet that palanquin is no lighter.”

“True,” said Hizdahr, “but those men are paid to bear its weight now. Before you came , that man who fell would have an overseer standing over him, stripping the skin off his back with a whip. Instead he is being given aid.”

This reminds me of a story I read about the Buddha as a child. The Buddha's father had heard a prophecy that should his son ever see a beggar, a sick man and a dying man that he would abandon his live of wealth and privilege as a Prince and instead seek enlightenment. So he gave strict orders that his son should never see such things until while ceremonially parading through the city on three successive days the young prince saw successively a beggar, a sick man and a dying man. The three so disturbing him that he rejected his life of privilege and power and headed into the wilderness to seek enlightenment instead.

I feel this is all about self knowledge. Daenerys sees the limitations of she has achieved and really isn't satisfied with baby steps. Achieving change is difficult. She can't clean herself of the guilt of having only produced very limited changes so easily.

political failure

As the crowds in the theatre cheer the full extent of her political failure is clear. In contrast to the ex-slaves cheering her in ASOS the wrong people are acknowledging her as mother. These are not the people she wants to nurture. In contrast she is thinking of the fighters feeling the hot sand beneath their feet and the one or two good customs that she wants to cling to. Here of course the 'healthful' stew made of the dead beasts slain in the pits available to anyone who presents themselves. Not exactly a soup kitchen by the sound of it. In other words she is present at the re-entrenchment of the power of the old ruling classes. And it's bitter to her.

Temptation

She is offered escapes by Xaro and by Quentyn but finally Drogon's offer is the one she accepts. It is the wildest, most dangerous and most foolish but also I think the most satisfying.

Mothers and children

This comes back to this issue of being a mother and who her children are – who should she be interested in and focus her attention on. For so much of the novel she has locked up her children like mad people in the attic (except down in the roots of the pyramid) and slowly step by step sold out the freed slaves in favour of the old ruling elites, finally of course she opts for one of her first born. Unsurprisingly it is not easy for her to re-establish the relationship.

Jon Snow

Well, that's two people I can think of who have smoking wounds in this book. More to the point Daenerys is not the only one who has a reversal towards the end of her arc...a reversal that has been anticipated as the chapters have developed...

The observant among you will have noticed that although this is the penultimate Daenerys chapter there are still a few more Jon chapters to go. What we will be doing over the next couple of weeks is alternating between Jon and the chapters of the two POVs associated with Daenerys and who observe the political consequences of her escape: Quentyn and Barristan before finally finishing this re-read with the last Daenerys chapter of ADWD possibly in early September.