Best method of resurecting Jon (?)

[TeamRhllor]

My thought on the best way to resurect Jon (aside from a pyre resurection like Dany's dragon egg hatching) would be this:

Jon is dead, but Mel realizes she's been wrong the whole time about Azor Ahai and starts to think Jon is the true AA. To resurrect him, she burns Shireen (or Theon?) and it's successful.

When he comes back and learns of what Mel did, he sentences her to death. When he executes her, her blood causes Long Claw to catch fire (like Beric's blood did before his fight with Sandor) and become Lightbringer.

I know there are similar theories out there, just havent heard this exact one. Thoughts? Anything I'm missing to further support or disprove this?

[caravaggio]

I'm not entirely sold on Mel being the vehicle for Jon's return, but if she was, I thought it might go something like this (similar to yours)...

 

Jon's dies and is placed in the ice cell.

 

Mel gets word (true or false) that Stannis is dead. (Or dead Stannis is brought to her)

 

Mel burns Shireen to try to resurrect Stannis.

 

Jon walks out of the ice cell instead.

 

 

I could see Jon killing Mel as you have describe for having burned Shireen.

[SweetPea]

I like your idea of Mel's blood igniting Longclaw. I think that would be awesome. 

[LC Dolorous]

The constant mourning of Edd that will follow will leave him no rest and will bring him back to life

[Ser Duncan The Average]

I'm not entirely sold on Mel being the vehicle for Jon's return, but if she was, I thought it might go something like this (similar to yours)...

 

Jon's dies and is placed in the ice cell.

 

Mel gets word (true or false) that Stannis is dead. (Or dead Stannis is brought to her)

 

Mel burns Shireen to try to resurrect Stannis.

 

Jon walks out of the ice cell instead.

 

 

I could see Jon killing Mel as you have describe for having burned Shireen.

 

I like basically all of this and I would only add that I have always thought it would be cool if she tried to stop him from killing her by glamouring herself to look like Ygritte, hoping that this might make him hesitate. So  that way if he does kill her he would be doing the whole "killed his wife" thing from the myth.

[caravaggio]

 

I like basically all of this and I would only add that I have always thought it would be cool if she tried to stop him from killing her by glamouring herself to look like Ygritte, hoping that this might make him hesitate. So  that way if he does kill her he would be doing the whole "killed his wife" thing from the myth.

Wow! That would be great!

[Nyrhex]

My thought on the best way to resurect Jon (aside from a pyre resurection like Dany's dragon egg hatching) would be this:

Jon is dead, but Mel realizes she's been wrong the whole time about Azor Ahai and starts to think Jon is the true AA. To resurrect him, she burns Shireen (or Theon?) and it's successful.

When he comes back and learns of what Mel did, he sentences her to death. When he executes her, her blood causes Long Claw to catch fire (like Beric's blood did before his fight with Sandor) and become Lightbringer.

I know there are similar theories out there, just havent heard this exact one. Thoughts? Anything I'm missing to further support or disprove this?

 

See, the main reason why I loath this concept, which is seemingly very popular on this board, is that Jon gets everything, and loses nothing. 

 

Jon does not make a sacrifice. A sacrifice should not be easy, and I'll argue that Dany's sacrifice was not really a true one as well since the hard choices were made for her.

 

In this scenario, Shireen is killed and as an aside removes any risk of Jon looking like an asshole when he makes a move for the throne. Because we as the readers have nothing against Shireen, that moment when Jon would make a move on the throne places him at odds with Stannis and Shireen, a man he respects and recognises as only one fighting to protect the realm, and his innocent daughter. If Stannis dies off in Winterfell and Shireen is killed by someone else to bring Jon, he now has an open path to stake his claim without having to actually get dirty.

 

Theon is also bad. Theon being executed infront of the Heart Tree and that being used to revive Jon is basically saying that sacrifice is such a meaningless term that a person can make a deal with the gods by taking credit for a death that is unrelated to him. Mel has nothing to lose from killing Theon, she does not care for him. Stannis has nothing to lose from killing Theon, his Northern allies would resent if he does'nt. Jon has nothing to lose, and wishes he could have killed him himself. It's basically getting a boon for doing something you already wanted to do. Not only that, but if Theon dies next to Winterfell and Mel takes credit, it makes it meaningless and she can for the same effect claim to have killed Balon and Joffrey and Renly etc and call it a sacrifice that deserves a boon. It's bullshit. 

 

Jon then killing Mel is again, not costing him anything, because he is already raised from the dead. Mel basically does the work, and gets to die as a thanks. If Jon is AAR, what she did was right. If he kills her and that turns his sword into Lightbringer, that is again no sacrifice, and he gets boons for doing stuff he wants to do.

 

This is shit on so many levels, and it's so popular here mainly becuase it is wish-fullfillment for people who don't understand how the magic system works and want to get all the benefits without any of the cons. A quick glance at some of the theories about Jon's coming back to life shows how many people on this board try and make any sort of mental gymnastics to get Jon out of this without even dying in the first place, because that would risk he gets the same results as others who have died and come back - Beric and Catelyn do not come back 100% as thier old selves, rather they lose parts of themselves. Becasue dying cost you something, it's the main part that GRRM claims to hate about Gandalf dying only to return without losing anything, he is stronger than before in fact. It's getting a boon for nothing. 

 

In this scenario either Theon dies and in some twisted logic he "repays" his debt for sticking with his real family over his captors, or the Baratheons are quitely pushed aside so Jon does'nt come out as a total dick for going against them later. Mel does all the work to get an AAR, and in return she dies becasue people take her to be evil when misguided is the worst that she can be labled. She has objectively, brought about the rebirth of AAR, her previouse attempt had resulted in the successful defense of the Wall and the strengthening of the NW right before the real threat comes. And for all that she dies because Jon wants to keep a self-rightous moral code when he does not have to pay for it, Mel had done so for him. Even in death she manages to do good, but the bottom line is that what she did is defince by Jon as evil.

 

This is the polar opposite of "best method" if we assume that best is objectively good for us in a story-telling way, in terms of what the message is. It means that the heros basically has everything handed to him and does not have to pay for it, he actually punishes people for paying for it for him.

 

In terms of "best method to get Jon with all the benefits, remove any moral obstacle for the throne and avenge his family, to get rid of characters I find evil despite having them do objective good, and keep Jon safe from any of the cons", then sure. But it's just a shit story then. It's something that people write in fanfiction. Bad fanfiction.

[Lady Blackmont]

See, the main reason why I loath this concept, which is seemingly very popular on this board, is that Jon gets everything, and loses nothing. 
 
Jon does not make a sacrifice. A sacrifice should not be easy, and I'll argue that Dany's sacrifice was not really a true one as well since the hard choices were made for her.
 
In this scenario, Shireen is killed and as an aside removes any risk of Jon looking like an asshole when he makes a move for the throne. Because we as the readers have nothing against Shireen, that moment when Jon would make a move on the throne places him at odds with Stannis and Shireen, a man he respects and recognises as only one fighting to protect the realm, and his innocent daughter. If Stannis dies off in Winterfell and Shireen is killed by someone else to bring Jon, he now has an open path to stake his claim without having to actually get dirty.
 
Theon is also bad. Theon being executed infront of the Heart Tree and that being used to revive Jon is basically saying that sacrifice is such a meaningless term that a person can make a deal with the gods by taking credit for a death that is unrelated to him. Mel has nothing to lose from killing Theon, she does not care for him. Stannis has nothing to lose from killing Theon, his Northern allies would resent if he does'nt. Jon has nothing to lose, and wishes he could have killed him himself. It's basically getting a boon for doing something you already wanted to do. Not only that, but if Theon dies next to Winterfell and Mel takes credit, it makes it meaningless and she can for the same effect claim to have killed Balon and Joffrey and Renly etc and call it a sacrifice that deserves a boon. It's bullshit. 
 
Jon then killing Mel is again, not costing him anything, because he is already raised from the dead. Mel basically does the work, and gets to die as a thanks. If Jon is AAR, what she did was right. If he kills her and that turns his sword into Lightbringer, that is again no sacrifice, and he gets boons for doing stuff he wants to do.
 
This is shit on so many levels, and it's so popular here mainly becuase it is wish-fullfillment for people who don't understand how the magic system works and want to get all the benefits without any of the cons. A quick glance at some of the theories about Jon's coming back to life shows how many people on this board try and make any sort of mental gymnastics to get Jon out of this without even dying in the first place, because that would risk he gets the same results as others who have died and come back - Beric and Catelyn do not come back 100% as thier old selves, rather they lose parts of themselves. Becasue dying cost you something, it's the main part that GRRM claims to hate about Gandalf dying only to return without losing anything, he is stronger than before in fact. It's getting a boon for nothing. 
 
In this scenario either Theon dies and in some twisted logic he "repays" his debt for sticking with his real family over his captors, or the Baratheons are quitely pushed aside so Jon does'nt come out as a total dick for going against them later. Mel does all the work to get an AAR, and in return she dies becasue people take her to be evil when misguided is the worst that she can be labled. She has objectively, brought about the rebirth of AAR, her previouse attempt had resulted in the successful defense of the Wall and the strengthening of the NW right before the real threat comes. And for all that she dies because Jon wants to keep a self-rightous moral code when he does not have to pay for it, Mel had done so for him. Even in death she manages to do good, but the bottom line is that what she did is defince by Jon as evil.
 
This is the polar opposite of "best method" if we assume that best is objectively good for us in a story-telling way, in terms of what the message is. It means that the heros basically has everything handed to him and does not have to pay for it, he actually punishes people for paying for it for him.
 
In terms of "best method to get Jon with all the benefits, remove any moral obstacle for the throne and avenge his family, to get rid of characters I find evil despite having them do objective good, and keep Jon safe from any of the cons", then sure. But it's just a shit story then. It's something that people write in fanfiction. Bad fanfiction.

:agree: Great post.

[Curled Finger]

I hate the whole idea of Mel being good or doing good in any capacity.   She's such a fanatic and so hard to like even a little bit.   It seems clear to me that she's the magic at the wall that can resurrect Jon, but why?   She hasn't caught on about his importance on any level at all.   I'm not sure she understands  who or what he is.   The idea of her taking the place of Nissa Nissa is logical, but Jon doesn't LOVE her or even like her.   She creeps him out and I took Nissa Nissa to be the love of AA's life.   I could be wrong, but like the poster above said, Jon will have to pay on some level.  If there has to be a death for Jon to wield Light Bringer it has to be the death of someone or something he loves--Arya, Sam, The Watch or Ghost.   I don't think he's got anything else left?  

[RoamingRonin]

<snip>

 

In terms of "best method to get Jon with all the benefits, remove any moral obstacle for the throne and avenge his family, to get rid of characters I find evil despite having them do objective good, and keep Jon safe from any of the cons", then sure. But it's just a shit story then. It's something that people write in fanfiction. Bad fanfiction.

 

That's exactly how Jon's story has worked throughout the entire series.

[Codename: Nymeria]

I started one such tinfoil theory, which you can *cough* click on from my sig line. It includes Theon ("salt") and the pyre, only involves a knowing sacrifice from Mel. 

 

 

See, the main reason why I loath this concept, which is seemingly very popular on this board, is that Jon gets everything, and loses nothing. 

 

Jon does not make a sacrifice. A sacrifice should not be easy, and I'll argue that Dany's sacrifice was not really a true one as well since the hard choices were made for her.

 

In this scenario, Shireen is killed and as an aside removes any risk of Jon looking like an asshole when he makes a move for the throne. Because we as the readers have nothing against Shireen, that moment when Jon would make a move on the throne places him at odds with Stannis and Shireen, a man he respects and recognises as only one fighting to protect the realm, and his innocent daughter. If Stannis dies off in Winterfell and Shireen is killed by someone else to bring Jon, he now has an open path to stake his claim without having to actually get dirty.

 

Theon is also bad. Theon being executed infront of the Heart Tree and that being used to revive Jon is basically saying that sacrifice is such a meaningless term that a person can make a deal with the gods by taking credit for a death that is unrelated to him. Mel has nothing to lose from killing Theon, she does not care for him. Stannis has nothing to lose from killing Theon, his Northern allies would resent if he does'nt. Jon has nothing to lose, and wishes he could have killed him himself. It's basically getting a boon for doing something you already wanted to do. Not only that, but if Theon dies next to Winterfell and Mel takes credit, it makes it meaningless and she can for the same effect claim to have killed Balon and Joffrey and Renly etc and call it a sacrifice that deserves a boon. It's bullshit. 

 

Jon then killing Mel is again, not costing him anything, because he is already raised from the dead. Mel basically does the work, and gets to die as a thanks. If Jon is AAR, what she did was right. If he kills her and that turns his sword into Lightbringer, that is again no sacrifice, and he gets boons for doing stuff he wants to do.

 

This is shit on so many levels, and it's so popular here mainly becuase it is wish-fullfillment for people who don't understand how the magic system works and want to get all the benefits without any of the cons. A quick glance at some of the theories about Jon's coming back to life shows how many people on this board try and make any sort of mental gymnastics to get Jon out of this without even dying in the first place, because that would risk he gets the same results as others who have died and come back - Beric and Catelyn do not come back 100% as thier old selves, rather they lose parts of themselves. Becasue dying cost you something, it's the main part that GRRM claims to hate about Gandalf dying only to return without losing anything, he is stronger than before in fact. It's getting a boon for nothing. 

 

In this scenario either Theon dies and in some twisted logic he "repays" his debt for sticking with his real family over his captors, or the Baratheons are quitely pushed aside so Jon does'nt come out as a total dick for going against them later. Mel does all the work to get an AAR, and in return she dies becasue people take her to be evil when misguided is the worst that she can be labled. She has objectively, brought about the rebirth of AAR, her previouse attempt had resulted in the successful defense of the Wall and the strengthening of the NW right before the real threat comes. And for all that she dies because Jon wants to keep a self-rightous moral code when he does not have to pay for it, Mel had done so for him. Even in death she manages to do good, but the bottom line is that what she did is defince by Jon as evil.

 

This is the polar opposite of "best method" if we assume that best is objectively good for us in a story-telling way, in terms of what the message is. It means that the heros basically has everything handed to him and does not have to pay for it, he actually punishes people for paying for it for him.

 

In terms of "best method to get Jon with all the benefits, remove any moral obstacle for the throne and avenge his family, to get rid of characters I find evil despite having them do objective good, and keep Jon safe from any of the cons", then sure. But it's just a shit story then. It's something that people write in fanfiction. Bad fanfiction.

 

I feel like this kind of short-sells some of what the story would potentially be leading to. Are Theon and Melisandre objectively evil? It seems like GRRM has gone to a great deal of trouble to present some of the moral complexities that have dogged Theon throughout his life, so it seems a bit silly to have him turn out to be meek and evil. He's made one step towards redemption already.

 

Likewise, Melisandre is more complex: why isn't her participation in bringing back AA a fulfillment of her arc? Like you say, she's actually done a pretty good job with so far, even if she has had to commit questionable acts to get it done.

 

I would agree Jon has to pay some sort of cost to turn into AA, that's pretty clear. If the original AA stabbed Nissa Nissa in the heart, I don't think chopping off the head of a woman he barely knows counts along those same lines.

 

The bolded part? Seems like a bit of an unwarranted assumption. I don't think you can really speak to what's "objectively" good storytelling.

[Luddagain]

I loathe the idea of John being dead at all.

 

There were three knives and maybe a fourth.   The first was minor, the second hit his intestines but while smoking did not come out bloody. The third the neck but NOT the throat.

 

So Jon is obviously injured but NOT dead.

 

Now several possibilities spring to mind. Jon was DRUGGED either before leaving the Shield Hall or in the first knife to the neck.  The combination of the drug and the extreme cold would slow down blood flow (we KNOW this happens) so chances are Jon is still alive.  Ghost will take out the assassins before there could be a fifth knife.

 

Now I am NOT convinced Bowen Marsh is a bad guy. Partly because of his name and origin ie a man of the Neck. A Howland REED man.  I suspect he is acting as a posthumous agent for Jeor Mormant/Maester Aemon/Howland Reed/Ned.  These  wise old codgers knew Jon would be tempted one day to break his vows, proba bly for his family - Bran or Arya (they would have had spies/info enough to know that Jon deeply loved Robb, and Bran, but most of all Arya.   - Benjen would know that, and Maester Aemon would guess it.  Sam could have told Aemon as part of general chit chat .   

 

So Mormant predicted that if Jon's FRIENDS had not brought him back that first time, then less pleasant means would be found.  Bowen Marsh is the less pleasant means.

 

Mormant and Aemon KNOW who Jon is.   They know he matters.  For all we know, Ned gave Benjen instructions that Jon must never be allowed to break his vows, knowing the danger to everyone. Benjen in turn conveys these to Mormant and Marsh

[Lady Blackmont]

I really don't want UnJon, but I don't see the alternative.

 

Why would George have him stabbed if it is going to be meaningless?

[TeamRhllor]

 
See, the main reason why I loath this concept, which is seemingly very popular on this board, is that Jon gets everything, and loses nothing. 
 
Jon does not make a sacrifice. A sacrifice should not be easy, and I'll argue that Dany's sacrifice was not really a true one as well since the hard choices were made for her.
 
In this scenario, Shireen is killed and as an aside removes any risk of Jon looking like an asshole when he makes a move for the throne. Because we as the readers have nothing against Shireen, that moment when Jon would make a move on the throne places him at odds with Stannis and Shireen, a man he respects and recognises as only one fighting to protect the realm, and his innocent daughter. If Stannis dies off in Winterfell and Shireen is killed by someone else to bring Jon, he now has an open path to stake his claim without having to actually get dirty.
 
Theon is also bad. Theon being executed infront of the Heart Tree and that being used to revive Jon is basically saying that sacrifice is such a meaningless term that a person can make a deal with the gods by taking credit for a death that is unrelated to him. Mel has nothing to lose from killing Theon, she does not care for him. Stannis has nothing to lose from killing Theon, his Northern allies would resent if he does'nt. Jon has nothing to lose, and wishes he could have killed him himself. It's basically getting a boon for doing something you already wanted to do. Not only that, but if Theon dies next to Winterfell and Mel takes credit, it makes it meaningless and she can for the same effect claim to have killed Balon and Joffrey and Renly etc and call it a sacrifice that deserves a boon. It's bullshit. 
 
Jon then killing Mel is again, not costing him anything, because he is already raised from the dead. Mel basically does the work, and gets to die as a thanks. If Jon is AAR, what she did was right. If he kills her and that turns his sword into Lightbringer, that is again no sacrifice, and he gets boons for doing stuff he wants to do.
 
This is shit on so many levels, and it's so popular here mainly becuase it is wish-fullfillment for people who don't understand how the magic system works and want to get all the benefits without any of the cons. A quick glance at some of the theories about Jon's coming back to life shows how many people on this board try and make any sort of mental gymnastics to get Jon out of this without even dying in the first place, because that would risk he gets the same results as others who have died and come back - Beric and Catelyn do not come back 100% as thier old selves, rather they lose parts of themselves. Becasue dying cost you something, it's the main part that GRRM claims to hate about Gandalf dying only to return without losing anything, he is stronger than before in fact. It's getting a boon for nothing. 
 
In this scenario either Theon dies and in some twisted logic he "repays" his debt for sticking with his real family over his captors, or the Baratheons are quitely pushed aside so Jon does'nt come out as a total dick for going against them later. Mel does all the work to get an AAR, and in return she dies becasue people take her to be evil when misguided is the worst that she can be labled. She has objectively, brought about the rebirth of AAR, her previouse attempt had resulted in the successful defense of the Wall and the strengthening of the NW right before the real threat comes. And for all that she dies because Jon wants to keep a self-rightous moral code when he does not have to pay for it, Mel had done so for him. Even in death she manages to do good, but the bottom line is that what she did is defince by Jon as evil.
 
This is the polar opposite of "best method" if we assume that best is objectively good for us in a story-telling way, in terms of what the message is. It means that the heros basically has everything handed to him and does not have to pay for it, he actually punishes people for paying for it for him.
 
In terms of "best method to get Jon with all the benefits, remove any moral obstacle for the throne and avenge his family, to get rid of characters I find evil despite having them do objective good, and keep Jon safe from any of the cons", then sure. But it's just a shit story then. It's something that people write in fanfiction. Bad fanfiction.

You're right, I do need to read more about the laws of magic, I'm admittedly a novice. Also, I'll need a wand. But seriously, thank you Magic Expert.

Also, I suppose going, idk, his entire life not knowing who he truly was, losing his entire family, being stabbed to death by his new family, losing the only woman he ever loved, etc. is, as you eloquently stated, having things handed to him. We'll find out soon, hopefully.

[TeamRhllor]

Also, the other two who've been resurrected couldn't warg. I'd say in the books he'll warg into Ghost, then warg back into his resurrected body. (In the show, they seem to be cutting the warg part) This way he's still himself. But I'm sure I'm going to get crushed for suggesting this as well.

[Hajk]

If Jon can be considered married right now, it is not to Melisandre (glamoured or not) but to Val. There are older threads about his having stolen her and the Wildlings realizing this (although Jon may not). If Val is an old god priestess as well (as had been speculated in various old threads e.g.

 

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/66294-tormund-and-val-;-jons-intermediaries-to-the-old-gods/

 

Then there perhaps she could play a role. Perhaps it will take both her and Melisandre (which will be a nice ring of Ice and Fire).

[The Wull]

I really don't want UnJon, but I don't see the alternative.

 

Why would George have him stabbed if it is going to be meaningless?

It's not meaningless if it changes him, whether he's dead or not.  Just the realization of the fact that his own brothers would betray him could be enough to change his course, and his outlook.  I don't see why he would HAVE to be dead to become harder, less naive, whatever people generally ascribe to UnJon.  Personally I hope he's not dead because I hate resurrections, and because it just creates so many more problems.

[IceFire125]

If Jon can be considered married right now, it is not to Melisandre (glamoured or not) but to Val. There are older threads about his having stolen her and the Wildlings realizing this (although Jon may not). If Val is an old god priestess as well (as had been speculated in various old threads e.g.

 

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/66294-tormund-and-val-;-jons-intermediaries-to-the-old-gods/

 

Then there perhaps she could play a role. Perhaps it will take both her and Melisandre (which will be a nice ring of Ice and Fire).

 

Yes! she will.

 

Jon was born of Ice (Stark) and Fire (Targaryen), he will reborn of Ice (Val) and Fire (Mel).

 

...for every song must have its balance.

[Monoman32]

I really don't want UnJon either because I don't want him to turn into LSH which would just completely destroy the only good character left.  If Jon comes back more wolfish and acts more like the old Kings of Winter and bit more gray, then I'm cool with that.  As far as Jon's resurrection, I've always thought that there would need to be 2 sacrifices.  1 to heal Jon's body, this could be Shireen or Theon or anybody really.  Then the second would be Ghost to transfer Jon's essence/mind/spirit back into his body.

[omiewise]

I just want him to warg into Ghost. Then, while still Ghost, ride Rhaegal.