The Jon Snow Reread Project II AGOT-ACOK

[Lummel]

...I like this idea about getting lost following someone else's path and the way it ties into Aemon's Raven and Dove speech.

In addition to Winterfellian's observations I think strict adherence to a code of honor could be considered "someone else's path" and is something we are led to believe is likely to get you lost.

...

Despite Jon's own doubtful feelings I think the family theme is strong here-- especially with Jon's pseudo-marriage to Ygritte because this relationship ends up serving the political purpose of a marriage for the Watch and the Wildlings in the end. Jon thinks he is failing like Ned did when he supposedly fathered Jon but in fact he is willingly taking on a public dishonor for an honorable reason which is the real Ned similarity.

A Lannister commentary? Tywin begets Tyrion and Jaime begets Joffrey.

:laugh: a lannister commentary! Priceless. But this reminds me of marrying out and marrying in (exogamy and endogamy iirc technically). The Wildlings, or any rate Ygritte's tribe/grouping/people whatever practise marrying out. Somebody fro the same village is taboo, they count as kin. There is an imperative to marry an outsider - this keep the folk strong. Implicitly all Wildlings are equal, they either count as kin and are taboo to have sex with or they are strangers and safe. For me this links back to the noble savage idea and reminds me of the women in the southseas and among some north american tribes who had sex with passing strangers (much to the delight of sailors and those in the company of Lewis and Clark).

South of the Wall the opposite situation rules. People are endogamous, you marry people who belong to your social group and in the most extreme case - the Targaryens - you marry as far as possible your own blood relatives. A habit which as we mentioned in the Tyrion reread the lannisters seems to imitating. Here we have the opposite to the wildling habit Tyrion marrying a crofters daughter is taboo and sowing his wild oats far and wide is disapproved of - this is mixing fine lannister seed with common stock.

I'm not sure quite where this takes me though apart from how thoroughly the implications of property and specifically land ownership south of the wall shape the whole of that society, the one basic difference that make north and south of the wall two different worlds.

Now this is potentially going to get interesting after ADWD since the wildlings don't seem (so far) to have a notion of common land and lacking land ownership have failed to develop TV and Sesame Street and so may have difficulties with the concept of sharing but are going to be living in a society based around the preservation of inherited property rights and which strongly believes that good fences make good neighbours.

I like that following someone else path is liable to get you lost, particularly in the light of discussions on another Jon thread. It sharpens the idea that Jon should be finding his own path while accepting the difficulties of this.

Actually marriage to Ygritte is interesting, there is probably a lot to be said about that, particularly given all the other marriages we see in the course of the series. Isn't it interesting that the leitmotiv of their relationship is 'you know nothing Jon Snow...but I'll teach you', kind of an initiation into wildling culture by means of sex.

[Fire Eater]

The Wall tried to shake me off

Deerhorn axes chopped and hacked

This wall is made o' blood

I think the Wall could be taken to be representative of Jon's honor with regards to his vows and commitment to the NW. Ygritte said the Wall tried to shake her off, representative of Jon's inner conflict, knowing he has to let go of Ygritte if he is to keep his vows and telling himself he shouldn't become attached to her. The axes are made from deer antlers, and with the stag being the sigil of House Baratheon, this foreshadows Stannis's offer to Jon to forsake his vows to the NW, and become the legitimized Lord of WF. The Wall being made of blood refers to the sacrifices made to keep those vows.

and never found the Horn of Joramun to bring this cold thing down!

I think the Horn of Winter will be blown, and when the Wall falls down, Jon's NW commitment will go with it, not saying that he will abandon the situation, he will find a way to make use of the loss of his vows to aid the situation. Without the Wall, the NW will cease to exist akin to the dying out of the Pharisees and Sadducees after the Temple was destroyed.

[Ibbison from Ibben]

I'm new to this thread, but would like to add a couple comments about recent chapters. (Great work all around, btw.)

Craster's- (Yes, that was a while back, but since we might have a return visit with Sam, I think this is significant.) The Others seem to be treating Craster's group as a domesticated herd of humans. They keep the alpha male and the females for breeding purposes, and cull the young males for their own use. In return, they protect the herd. I got a distinctive vibe of the subhuman around Craster's. It's a breeding operation, and the Others are the shepards.

Why haven't the Others staged an all-out attack on the Wildings? I see the White Walkers as highly intelligent beings, fully capable of complex stratagies. The basic problem they face is they themselves can't overcome the Wall; the magic is specifically targetted against them and it is effective. The magic doesn't affect the Wildings, though. The Others seem to be driving the Wildings south, in the hopes that the Wildings will beat the Wall and the NW for them.

Mance's black cloak with red patches, coupled with his musical abilities, certainly evokes a suggestion of Rhaegar. (Symbolically at least, for those who don't want to participate in a Hidden Targ Hunt.) Are Jon's interactions with Mance supposed to be looked at as a different type of father/son relationship for Jon? I'm not sure, but I'm much better on plot than characterisation, which is why I read threads like this.

eta grammar

[Lummel]

The Wall tried to shake me off

Deerhorn axes chopped and hacked

This wall is made o' blood

I think the Wall could be taken to be representative of Jon's honor with regards to his vows and commitment to the NW. Ygritte said the Wall tried to shake her off, representative of Jon's inner conflict, knowing he has to let go of Ygritte if he is to keep his vows and telling himself he shouldn't become attached to her. The axes are made from deer antlers, and with the stag being the sigil of House Baratheon, this foreshadows Stannis's offer to Jon to forsake his vows to the NW, and become the legitimized Lord of WF. The Wall being made of blood refers to the sacrifices made to keep those vows.

and never found the Horn of Joramun to bring this cold thing down!

I think the Horn of Winter will be blown, and when the Wall falls down, Jon's NW commitment will go with it, not saying that he will abandon the situation, he will find a way to make use of the loss of his vows to aid the situation. Without the Wall, the NW will cease to exist akin to the dying out of the Pharisees and Sadducees after the Tenple was destroyed.

It's not the way I would read it, but I certainly like the symbolic richness you are seeing here, although to my mind Jon's commitment to the Night's Watch is gone before the end of ADWD even though the Wall was still standing. On the other hand that notion of shaking off Ygritte's influence will come up again...

...Craster's- (Yes, that was a while back, but since we might have a return visit with Sam, I think this is significant.) The Others seem to be treating Craster's group as a domesticated herd of humans. They keep the alpha male and the females for breeding purposes, and cull the young males for their own use. In return, they protect the herd. I got a distinctive vibe of the subhuman around Craster's. It's a breeding operation, and the Others are the shepards.

Why haven't the Others staged an all-out attack on the Wildings? I see the White Walkers as highly intelligent beings, fully capable of complex stratagies. The basic problem they face is they themselves can't overcome the Wall; the magic is specifically targetted against them and it is effective. The magic doesn't affect the Wildings, though. The Others seem to be driving the Wildings south, in the hopes that the Wildings will beat the Wall and the NW for them.

Mance's black cloak with red patches, coupled with his musical abilities, certainly evokes a suggestion of Rhaegar. (Symbolically at least, for those who don't want to participate in a Hidden Targ Hunt.) Are Jon's interactions with Mance supposed to be looked at as a different type of father/son relationship for Jon? I'm not sure, but I'm much better on plot than characterisation, which is why I read threads like this.

eta grammar

Welcome Ibbison from Ibben - long time no see!

Love the domesticated humans take, it's easy to imagine that actually, Craster as a boar and his daughter-sister-wives as sows, the piglets dragged off to market or kept for breeding.

Is Mance a father figure for Jon? It seems about right age wise, he certainly seems to a character than Jon could have learnt from. Can we say that Jon is Mance's political heir? Interesting question.

[Julian Rayne]

Craster's- (Yes, that was a while back, but since we might have a return visit with Sam, I think this is significant.) The Others seem to be treating Craster's group as a domesticated herd of humans. They keep the alpha male and the females for breeding purposes, and cull the young males for their own use. In return, they protect the herd. I got a distinctive vibe of the subhuman around Craster's. It's a breeding operation, and the Others are the shepards.

Very apt comparison IMO. Although it showcases the Other's lack of aptitude in husbandry with the incest and all.

Can we say that Jon is Mance's political heir? Interesting question.

Well he did get them south of the Wall, something Mance promised them and could not deliver. And a lot of the Wildlings are taking order from Jon now. And in the same manner in which they used to take orders from Mance - he has to convince them.

[Ragnorak]

The things we love destroy us every time, lad. Remember that.

...Somplace warm... Ser Crow

Sam II (SoS)

Summary

The chapter opens with the juxtaposition of birth and death both of which instill fear in Sam. The few survivors that escaped the Fist have made it to Craster's and Gilly is giving birth in the loft while Sam tries to feed a thin onion broth to a dying brother. Craster is a reluctant and resentful host and there is growing tension accentuated by a lack of food. Sam leaves Craster's hall where he can no longer endure the birth, death, and Craster's attention. He is invited to archery practice which he perceives as taunting and then has a somewhat philosophical discussion with Grenn about nicknames.

Mormont's return from a patrol is heralded by his raven cawing "Snow" and he discusses dragonglass with Sam and how the Watch has lost sight of its true purpose. They are interrupted by Craster announcing the birth of his son. Picking up on Craster's complaint about another mouth to feed Sam offers to take the boy with the Watch when they leave. This angers Mormont and he orders Sam back inside Craster's hall where he discovers the wounded brother he was attending has died. They hold a funeral and burn the body but it smells so much like pork that Sam feels ill and leaves to retch and we're treated to another Dolorous Edd monologue.

After the funeral Mormont tells Craster they'll be leaving in the morning and he offers to have a "feed" rather than a feast to send them off. He only provides two loaves of bread which inspires an outburst by some of the brothers that Mormont barely keeps under control. Craster tries to kick the outspoken brothers out of his hall which ends in Craster's death, then Mormont's and a violent ensuing chaos. Sam comes to cradling a dying Mormont's head content to die in his hopelessness until two women convince him to try and get Gilly and her son away to safety.

Observations

“Down White Harbor way,” someone called out.
Mormont nodded. “He came to us from White Harbor, and never failed in his duty. He kept his vows as best he could, rode far, fought fiercely. We shall never see his like again.”
“And now his watch is ended,” the black brothers said, in solemn chant.
“And now his watch is ended,” Mormont echoed.

An interesting turn of phrase.

“The boy’s brothers,” said the old woman on the left. “Craster’s sons. The white cold’s rising out there, crow. I can feel it in my bones. These poor old bones don’t lie. They’ll be here soon, the sons.”

What to make of this... Did these women never have sons? They call them Craster's sons but not their own. Infant wights or White Walkers? (An infant wight just doesn't seem very frightening.) Crackpot-- Is Craster mating with Others like the Nights King? Are infants needed to breed new White Walkers? Just superstition or a frightened association? Coldhands will later mention the temptation of a newborn that seems to point toward hunger and not "brothers." Taken at face value there's a lot to speculate on.

The Grenn nickname conversation seems worth exploring.

I think this is the last we see of the Raven until he pops out of the choosing kettle. He's very talkative this chapter.

Analysis

This was one of the heavy plot drama chapters. There's a certain relief that at least Sam and some familiar Watch figures survived to make it to Craster's but the situation is shadowed with ominous threats of food shortages, too few mounts, wounded men and the long dangerous trek back to the Wall. While these obstacles weigh in the back of a reader's mind amplified by Sam's own despairing inner monologue there is a tendency to anticipate the obstacles ahead only to have the rug yanked out by murder and mutiny. There is a wake of despair left that plays on the already arduous false dramatic narrative of the 40 man trek to the Wall that was being anticipated. The narrative tempo tends to play with the reader's expectations in a way that somewhat mimics Sam's despair and breakdown. It really is quite brilliantly done.

Onions

Sam has his noteworthy Mel contradiction moment here:

“If half of an onion is black with rot, it is a rotten onion. A man is good, or he is evil.”

When Craster’s wives brought onions, he seized one eagerly. One side was black with rot, but he cut that part off with his dagger and ate the good half raw.

What are we to make of the onion symbolism? There's some speculation in the food code thread

Are onions morality or "goodness"? A complex and layered thing that can be salvaged or redeemed if one removes the bad parts? I'm not entirely happy with that but I have nothing better to suggest at the moment.

This chapter there's the thin and barely nourishing onion broth that won't go into the dead man's mouth. It is the poor fare being served as we hear complaints that Craster is killing the wounded with his failure to offer more food while Craster himself gnaws on a sausage.

Onions show up in Jon:

Ygritte's breath smells of onion (he sensed no evil in her is the reason he gives to the Halfhand for sparing her)

There's the Onion or the Apple "you have to choose" moment (could be construed as the onion vs. Eve's apple)

In the Davos chapter with Mel he says

“Someone once told me the night is dark and full of terrors. And tonight I am no knight. Tonight I am Davos the smuggler again. Would that you were an onion.”

and Davos wishes he were smuggling a more moral cargo like his original onions of salvation and says so plainly to Mel.

Any other ideas or better takes on this one?

Food for thought (and a pun to entertain Lummel.)

Speaking of Lummel there are three Garths in this chapter, damn him!

Jon and Mormont

There's some interesting parallels to be seen here.

Both men are stabbed by fellow Watch members likely over the issues of being peaceful toward wildlings and the issue of food. Jon is concerned with family immediately before being stabbed and Mormont's thoughts run to family right afterward.

Mormont comes to the same conclusion as Jon regarding the Wildlings

You don’t build a wall seven hundred feet high to keep savages in skins from stealing women. The Wall was made to guard the realms of men… and not against other men, which is all the wildlings are when you come right down to it.

Both order Sam not to be afraid and both will order Sam to "abandon" Gilly's baby. Both also task Sam with being the storyteller. Jon suggests he be the one to chronicle the Watch and Mormont asks him to bring the tale of their ranging back to the Wall.

Knighthood

Sam raises the moral issues surrounding the Watch's dealings with Craster-- more so in his thoughts than in his words to Mormont.

Knights are supposed to defend women and children. Only a few of the black brothers were knights, but even so… We all say the words, Sam thought. I am the shield that guards the realms of men. A woman was a woman, even a wildling woman. We should help her. We should.

This is juxtaposed with Gilly's words

Gilly was crying. “Me and the babe. Please. I’ll be your wife, like I was Craster’s. Please, ser crow. He’s a boy, just like Nella said he’d be. If you don’t take him, they will.”

[Lummel]

Great stuff! I read this chapter for the first time in a long time last week and I thought that there are so many great moments here. It's a real turning point too. Sam's interaction with Mormont comes across in contrast and in opposition to the chat between Mormont and Jon in ACOK Jon III. Then they were riding out viewing the wildlings as a threat, now Mormont acknowledges that they are included as a realm of men within the night watch oath. Big change of heart here.

Weird odd random association with the onion story - I remember a story about a man who was pursued by a tiger. Running, he fell over a cliff edge but managed to catch hold of a thin branch. Above him the tiger paced back and forth, pausing only to lick it's lips. Below himself the man could see a big crocodile. The branch that he clung to was weak and beginning to give way. But over to one side the man could see a luscious fruit growing and with one hand he reaches out for it.

I don't understand why though why I'm like three Garths :( :laugh:

[Ibbison from Ibben]

What to make of this... Did these women never have sons? They call them Craster's sons but not their own. Infant wights or White Walkers? (An infant wight just doesn't seem very frightening.) Crackpot-- Is Craster mating with Others like the Nights King? Are infants needed to breed new White Walkers? Just superstition or a frightened association? Coldhands will later mention the temptation of a newborn that seems to point toward hunger and not "brothers." Taken at face value there's a lot to speculate on.

"Craster's sons but not their own" - I took this as an emotional defense mechanism the women use to distance themselves from infants they know they will be forced to give up.

The White Walkers certainly do collect Craster's sons. This is where I was headed with the "breeding livestock" comparison I used above. The incest remindes me of Targaryen incest, and might very well be used for the same reason - to maintain a special trait passed on by heredity.

The Coldshands incident seems to be different. Sam and Gilly are attacked by wights, which seek out any hot blood. Craster's sons are collected by White Walkers, seemingly for a special purpose.

Whenever I think along these lines, the image of a White Walker nursery/daycare center pops into my mind. :drunk:

[Ragnorak]

Great stuff! I read this chapter for the first time in a long time last week and I thought that there are so many great moments here. It's a real turning point too. Sam's interaction with Mormont comes across in contrast and in opposition to the chat between Mormont and Jon in ACOK Jon III. Then they were riding out viewing the wildlings as a threat, now Mormont acknowledges that they are included as a realm of men within the night watch oath. Big change of heart here.

Weird odd random association with the onion story - I remember a story about a man who was pursued by a tiger. Running, he fell over a cliff edge but managed to catch hold of a thin branch. Above him the tiger paced back and forth, pausing only to lick it's lips. Below himself the man could see a big crocodile. The branch that he clung to was weak and beginning to give way. But over to one side the man could see a luscious fruit growing and with one hand he reaches out for it.

I don't understand why though why I'm like three Garths :( :laugh:

It really is a turning point chapter. Sam reaches his absolute lowest point and then begins to pick himself up. Much later a similar desperation in Sam will lead him to start a bar fight in Braavos instead of collapsing. The complete breakdown of command, the mutiny, the rape and murder are also a bit of a turning point for the Watch in a similar way. This is the lowest point of the failing institution and it will begin to pick itself up much like Sam largely aided by the efforts of Sam and the other survivors. There really are so many great moments. "The Watch wears black because they're already dead" is a notion at the root of the bravery the two old women show at the end. There's also something compelling about the quintessential weak trio of elderly, women and children being the brave ones at the end. Even the individual reactions to Craster beating the girl that Sam recalls convey so much and flavor the scene.

The Garths thing was just a nod to the old Garth the Gallant debate back in Tyrion...

"Craster's sons but not their own" - I took this as an emotional defense mechanism the women use to distance themselves from infants they know they will be forced to give up.

The White Walkers certainly do collect Craster's sons. This is where I was headed with the "breeding livestock" comparison I used above. The incest remindes me of Targaryen incest, and might very well be used for the same reason - to maintain a special trait passed on by heredity.

The Coldshands incident seems to be different. Sam and Gilly are attacked by wights, which seek out any hot blood. Craster's sons are collected by White Walkers, seemingly for a special purpose.

Whenever I think along these lines, the image of a White Walker nursery/daycare center pops into my mind. :drunk:

This passage is just one of many we've run across so far that raise questions about the nature of the Others. I like your ideas and the "distancing" was my reaction as well. In the end I always feel like Sam in his conversation with Grenn where he's fixated on what we just don't know though-- although that's probably intentional on Martin's part.

[Julian Rayne]

"Craster's sons but not their own" - I took this as an emotional defense mechanism the women use to distance themselves from infants they know they will be forced to give up.

Do you mean like they're Craster's children because he "made" them what they are in a way that their mothers did not?

[Ibbison from Ibben]

Do you mean like they're Craster's children because he "made" them what they are in a way that their mothers did not?

I understood the passage to mean that the woman who was speaking thought the White Walkers, who were coming to collect Gilly's baby, were actual sons of Craster's that had been collected previously. The woman herself may or may not have had a son by Craster who was given to the White Walkers sometime in the past, but she doesn't seem interested in even considering that any of the WWs could be HER son. Any woman of Craster's knows she won't be able to keep a male baby, so they avoid investing in them emotionally, at least as much as they can. I'm open to other ways of reading the passage if someone has an alternative.

[Treemaster]

Great summary and analysis Ragnorak!

I don't have too much to add, but, with respect to onions, somehow the notion that they are not necessarily all that tasty -- raw onions are downright nasty -- and can cause tears when they are cut should be incorporated into the analysis. Maybe things that are good for us are not always sweet or pleasant? Not sure how this would play out, but it seems like an important aspects to onions that should come into play in some way.

Another thought: On another thread, there's been some debate about whether the Watch has done the right thing with repsect to Craster -- that is, accepting him as an ally rather than the turning on him due to his obvious disgustingness. I wonder how that plays out here. Without Craster, these survivors might not have had any chance of making it back to the wall in the first place, even though Craster's help was grudging and threadbare at best. From a piratical standpoint, it may be things like this that have made Mormont, Benjen, and others of the Watch's Older Generation willing to tolerate Craster. But if Craster's sons are truly becoming wights or Others, then Craster's actions may have caused the attack on the Watch that caused their need for shelter in the first place. So I don't think the events in this chapter conclusively resolve the debate about what, if anything, the Watch should have done with Craster.

[Winterfellian]

Another thought: On another thread, there's been some debate about whether the Watch has done the right thing with repsect to Craster -- that is, accepting him as an ally rather than the turning on him due to his obvious disgustingness. I wonder how that plays out here. Without Craster, these survivors might not have had any chance of making it back to the wall in the first place, even though Craster's help was grudging and threadbare at best. From a piratical standpoint, it may be things like this that have made Mormont, Benjen, and others of the Watch's Older Generation willing to tolerate Craster. But if Craster's sons are truly becoming wights or Others, then Craster's actions may have caused the attack on the Watch that caused their need for shelter in the first place. So I don't think the events in this chapter conclusively resolve the debate about what, if anything, the Watch should have done with Craster.

The thing with this that we’ll never really know. And that is because by settling for Craster out of convenience and complacency the Watch failed to look for other options. In that other thread Lummel pointed out Mance’s tale about how his fellow rangers took him to a wilding village where he was tended. So there clearly are other options.

And I don´t know, it seems to me that by maintaining closer relations with other wildings as opposed to Craster it might have been more beneficial to the NW from an operational standpoint. I am convinced that the whole tragic debacle of the ranging might have been minimized, and perhaps even avoided, should the Watch have been better informed of what was going on, information that other wildings might have been willing to provide. The Watch set out spirited by their encounter with the wights to look traces for a supernatural threat and somehow got sidetracked to fight wildings. I feel Craster is a big part of the reason why this happened.

During the first visit is interesting to observe how Craster easily dismissed anything Other-related (he told them to not go spreading tales like those around his wives for example) but is actually very cooperative (by Craster’s standards at least) to provide intel on the wildings. What’s more, he probably even knew the reason Mance was gathering the free folk (he received at least an emissary) and never shared the information with Mormont and the Watch. He seems to be actively contributing to pitch the Watch against the wildings and distract them from what was actually in front of them.

In summation I tend to see the disastrous ranging as a by-product of the Craster alliance and even a cautionary example against taking the easy road and settling for moral complacency.

[Ragnorak]

Great summary and analysis Ragnorak!

I don't have too much to add, but, with respect to onions, somehow the notion that they are not necessarily all that tasty -- raw onions are downright nasty -- and can cause tears when they are cut should be incorporated into the analysis. Maybe things that are good for us are not always sweet or pleasant? Not sure how this would play out, but it seems like an important aspects to onions that should come into play in some way.

Another thought: On another thread, there's been some debate about whether the Watch has done the right thing with repsect to Craster -- that is, accepting him as an ally rather than the turning on him due to his obvious disgustingness. I wonder how that plays out here. Without Craster, these survivors might not have had any chance of making it back to the wall in the first place, even though Craster's help was grudging and threadbare at best. From a piratical standpoint, it may be things like this that have made Mormont, Benjen, and others of the Watch's Older Generation willing to tolerate Craster. But if Craster's sons are truly becoming wights or Others, then Craster's actions may have caused the attack on the Watch that caused their need for shelter in the first place. So I don't think the events in this chapter conclusively resolve the debate about what, if anything, the Watch should have done with Craster.

Thank you! I like the onion observations. I'm still uncertain if the whole "morality" symbolism is the right fit, but if it is they fit in quite well.

I think Martin's intent is to make us feel uncomfortable with the whole morality vs. pragmatism Craster scenario. In the end I think his sacrificing to the Others clearly settles the issue but while they were still childhood boogie men like the grumpkins that isn't something one can entirely fault the Watch for not addressing. Even the accusation here that Craster is "starving" the wounded to death is a debatable factual claim designed to straddle both sides of the issue. He is helping but he's also holding back. The Watch's situation without his help may have meant certain death, but he's also gnawing on a sausage in front of men in danger of starvation. There's his abrasive arrogance that (at least initially) isn't reacted to because of a certain truth to his limited aid. Craster is set up to be despised but is that a reason to steal his food or his home or to leave these women without a defender however repugnant he may be? Whatever one answers to that Martin seems intent on making it as hard as possible for the reader to reach an easy moral conclusion. There are other roads like offering to bring him food from Castle Black later or offering him food and shelter should his Winter stores run out, but the narrative here is dire and not contemplative. So readers are left with a gut choice in the background between taking by force or accepting the hospitality with all its bitter imperfections. Where is the line and did Craster cross it or should Mormont have? While I have opinions on the matter the author's intent seems to be more to impose the dilemma more than hint at its resolution.

The "cold" theme here continues from the prologue and Sam's last chapter. At the end when the women both say "someplace warm" it is almost a condemnation of their whole existence. Though the words "Winter is coming" never appear in these chapters, so far Sam's POV has done a superb job of accentuating the impact of that phrase.

What about Sam's nickname discussion with Grenn? Martin has an amazing array of nicknames-- The Hound, The Mountain that Rides, The Imp, The Great Walrus, Satin, the Old Bear, The Red Viper, Gatehouse Ami, Whoresbane, The Goat, The Queen of Thorns and many more. It is interesting that he should include an in story commentary on the subjective use of nicknames. It ties in a little with Tyrion's advice to make it your own and armor yourself with it but I get a sense there's something more. Sam asks why he can't just be Samwell Tarly and I suspect it is a question posed by the author to the reader. Maybe not one of the more cosmically important ones but it does touch on the theme of identity. Any thoughts?

[Lummel]

"Craster's sons but not their own" - I took this as an emotional defense mechanism the women use to distance themselves from infants they know they will be forced to give up...

It is a very striking phrase, they are absolving themselves of responsibility - but then they are captives in this breeding programme...

...The Garths thing was just a nod to the old Garth the Gallant debate back in Tyrion...

Garlan the Galent? Oh you mean Garlan the Guilty! ;)

Great summary and analysis Ragnorak!

I don't have too much to add, but, with respect to onions, somehow the notion that they are not necessarily all that tasty -- raw onions are downright nasty -- and can cause tears when they are cut should be incorporated into the analysis. Maybe things that are good for us are not always sweet or pleasant? ...

Also full of vitamins.

Generally on the onion question. We have Melisandre telling Davos that a man is good or bad, sound or rotten - no middle ground, the half rotten onion is a rotten onion. We have one response by Sam here - the rot can be cut off, the good can be considered, enjoyed and made use of and the bad disposed of. Stannis also takes this approach with Davos - the man's done bad deeds so we'll chop them off, yet Stannis needs the skills and the intelligence that derive from that smuggling. A clean cut between the good and the bad can't be found in the human heart, particularly considering as good and bad depends on what side of the Wall you stand on. I mean smuggling against an exploitative Feudal- like regime is an act of heroism and resistance ;)

...During the first visit is interesting to observe how Craster easily dismissed anything Other-related (he told them to not go spreading tales like those around his wives for example) but is actually very cooperative (by Craster’s standards at least) to provide intel on the wildings. What’s more, he probably even knew the reason Mance was gathering the free folk (he received at least an emissary) and never shared the information with Mormont and the Watch. He seems to be actively contributing to pitch the Watch against the wildings and distract them from what was actually in front of them.

In summation I tend to see the disastrous ranging as a by-product of the Craster alliance and even a cautionary example against taking the easy road and settling for moral complacency.

Yes I think the Craster business, and I agree as far as I can tell entirely with you, Winterfellian on this, the relationship with Craster is an intelligence dead end, or perhaps we could say that Craster is a kind of double agent - feeding information to the Night's Watch that deflects attention away from his cold gods.

On the reread the language he uses to talk about wights and White Walkers leaps off the page for instance:

There had been no attacks while they had been at Craster's, neigther wights nor Others. Nor would there be, Craster said. "A godly man got no cause to fear such. I said as much to that Mance Rayder once, when he come sniffing round. He never listened, no more'n you crows with your swords and your bloody fires. That won't help you none when the white cold comes. Only the gods will help you then. You best get right with the gods."

He's all but saying that he's in league with the White Walkers but nobody ever listens to him :laugh:

...What about Sam's nickname discussion with Grenn? Martin has an amazing array of nicknames-- The Hound, The Mountain that Rides, The Imp, The Great Walrus, Satin, the Old Bear, The Red Viper, Gatehouse Ami, Whoresbane, The Goat, The Queen of Thorns and many more. It is interesting that he should include an in story commentary on the subjective use of nicknames. It ties in a little with Tyrion's advice to make it your own and armor yourself with it but I get a sense there's something more. Sam asks why he can't just be Samwell Tarly and I suspect it is a question posed by the author to the reader. Maybe not one of the more cosmically important ones but it does touch on the theme of identity. Any thoughts?

Also Craster worries at that sausage, suggests a dog worrying at a bone. Not a human way of eating.

Names are important, if only because they are linked to identity and can frame the way a person is perceived. Samwell Tarly is a nobleman, Sam the Slayer a joke - or maybe an unlikely hero. All are true but only facets of the whole character. That's all I've got at the moment - aside from Jaqen at Harrenhall - possession of the name gives power, power to frame and define a person, maybe in ways that they are not comfortable with?

Some other thoughts:

Sam frightened by the presence of birth and death, Is it the implications? Birth and death will oblige them all to move on I suppose.

The onion is also a very wholesome vegetable. Not fancy. But layers suggest complexity.

"a ragged score of black brothers" Nice phrase

Sam's reflection on the oath - the Watch has been picking and choosing which parts to follow in fighting Wildlings

'"we could take him" someone squeaked' I love Sam's disassociation here even in his own POV chapter!

"My son. My blood. You think I'd give him to you crows?" - so sacrificing his blood buys him safety?

Dense chapter I think lots going on here. I wondered if Dolorous Edd's morning relief of his bladder was a deliberate parallel to Tyrion's before the Purple wedding?

[Ragnorak]

It is a very striking phrase, they are absolving themselves of responsibility - but then they are captives in this breeding programme...

Garlan the Galent? Oh you mean Garlan the Guilty! ;)

Names are important, if only because they are linked to identity and can frame the way a person is perceived. Samwell Tarly is a nobleman, Sam the Slayer a joke - or maybe an unlikely hero. All are true but only facets of the whole character. That's all I've got at the moment - aside from Jaqen at Harrenhall - possession of the name gives power, power to frame and define a person, maybe in ways that they are not comfortable with?

Just a quick bit on the nicknames. Their discussion seems to boil down to two main things. The name being subjective based on the addresser rather than the addressee (aurochs meaning "stupid" from Thorne but a "noble beast" from a friendlier source) and the importance of earning the name (maybe defining yourself or being your own man?.) The two also seem to have some interplay as Grenn seems to think Sam's earning the name somewhat precludes it from being used to call him a coward like Thorne called Grenn stupid with "Aurochs." Part of this relates to bravery and Ned's line about only being able to be brave when scared, but there's also some identity stuff there too.

Tyrion generally reacted poorly to being called a giant, but reacted quite positively to Aemon referring to him as one. Then there's the Giant of Lannister comment that he quite enjoyed from Shae until she repeated it at his trial. For Jon, our main focus here, both "bastard" and "Lord Snow" evolve in meaning for him.

On the Gallant front that was a name applied to him by his brother to prevent him from getting one resembling one of Sam's fat monikers so he didn't "come by it fairly" in Grenn's assessment. Absent some later Lord Snow-like evolution that tends to support the "Guilty" title (damn you.) We get all kinds of nickname backstories like "Whoresbane" and here we seem to get a fairly deliberate in-text commentary on the practice here. We also get more of Tormund later who is his own nickname marketing firm. Far more generalized a topic than Sam and Jon but maybe something enlightening can be gleaned from a closer look at it.

[SeanF]

I'd always been pretty disturbed by the Watch's willingness to tolerate Craster's deeds, but at least thought there was an argument that it served the greater good. But, thanks to this reread, and the discussion on the other thread, I now think that actually it didn't. Craster was either using the Watch against the wildlings, on behalf of the Others, or betraying them to their doom on the Fist of the First Men. Giving them a bit of food and shelter in return doesn't amount to very much.

The wildlings are divided among themselves. The Watch could surely have developed relationships with other clans and families, and acquired intelligence that way.

[Isildur's Mane]

Hey all, just a quick reply because I don't have access to a computer with proper Internet and I'm doing this from my iPod - which I find a bit tedious sometimes.

Anyway- in regards to nicknames:

Most are given to you. Not many people go around making their own, for fear of looking like weirdos. A lot of the time the are given as a form of endearment, but the are also given negatively as a form of bullying etc.

In Sam's case, the names he gets are mostly weight related, or to do with the fact that he goes around saying he is craven. And that most of the men would see him that way. Not many people see that he has a different type of bravery.

With, say, the Hound, people see him as a dog who serves a master, not as a man.

I believe, when Sam says (paraphrase) 'why can't I be called Sam?' He is saying, something along the lines of 'why can't I decide who I want to be?'

'Why can't I be seen as more then just a scared, fat man?'

.....

And, now on a completely different note, because I'm a bit behind, I'd like to sort of catch up.

Wrt Jon back in III? (The one wear he he says goodbye to ghost and has sex with Ygritte)

I can't remember if it has been bought up at the time, but. I thought Jon was very 'wolf- like' in his affections - how he nuzzled, sniffed, licked, tasted etc.

just an observation I had.

Also, I've only just started reading the 'sweet code' thread and I noticed, in the same chapter ( and others) that the word 'sweet' was being used a lot.

First Ygritte using it while having sex (their 1st time) then soon after Jon thinking:

'The proving had been so sweet, though, and Ygritte had gone to sleep beside him with her head against his chest, and that was sweet as well, dangerously sweet. ...'

(I wanted to bold the sweets, but I don't know how to on this)

Anyway, I'm not sure if that belongs on here or the other thread, if it had been bought up here or on the other thread either but I just remembered it then.

[Treemaster]

Very persuasive comments on Craster, Winterfellian. It's getting harder and harder to defend him. I do agree with Ragnarok that Martin is trying to make it hard for the reader to reach a conclusion (at least on an initial read as opposed to a re-read) about what should be or should have been done with Craster.

I like the thought of an onion showing it's hard to even know when the rotten part ends and the good part begins. So even though Stannis has a "deeper" analysis than Melisandre -- it's not an all or nothing, and at the very least the "bad" part can be cut away -- but maybe even Stannis is missing the point. Maybe you can't have the good part without the bad part. Just some musings. I'm not committed to any particular interpretation and I'm not sure how Martin is intending for this to play out, if he intends to resolve it at all.

[Lummel]

Ragnorak, on 24 Oct 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

Just a quick bit on the nicknames. Their discussion seems to boil down to two main things. The name being subjective based on the addresser rather than the addressee (aurochs meaning "stupid" from Thorne but a "noble beast" from a friendlier source) and the importance of earning the name (maybe defining yourself or being your own man?.) The two also seem to have some interplay as Grenn seems to think Sam's earning the name somewhat precludes it from being used to call him a coward like Thorne called Grenn stupid with "Aurochs." Part of this relates to bravery and Ned's line about only being able to be brave when scared, but there's also some identity stuff there too... We also get more of Tormund later who is his own nickname marketing firm. Far more generalized a topic than Sam and Jon but maybe something enlightening can be gleaned from a closer look at it.

I now have this image of a marketing company doing a rebranding exercise for Tormund...

Er, to make the obvious point, like the animal references (lion of Lannister) the nicknames can be double edged. Taken as a positive or a negative, empowering or imprisoning. The Hound suggests loyalty, but also a sub-human beast (with a wet nose). Lord Snow is a great one, from mockery to heralding the coming of the Lord, the snow re-enforcing the winter connection.

SeanF, on 24 Oct 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:

.... The Watch could surely have developed relationships with other clans and families, and acquired intelligence that way.

I think so. It looks very much like a lost opportunity

Isildur's Mane, on 24 Oct 2013 - 12:54 PM, said: