Jump to content

Olly didn't deserve that


INCBlackbird

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, Nocturne said:

So what? Doesn't matter it he saw his parents getting murdered by wildings, that doesn't give him the right to kill Jon Snow who is NOT a wilding. It doesn't matter if he is a kid, murder a conscious one at that, cannot go unpunished.

Post like these pretty much show what's wrong with society nowadays..justifying murder..jesus fucking christ.

 

I was struck by the degree of hatred out there for Olly.

99% of Show watchers were delighted by his death;  indeed, argued that he should have received even worse punishment.  Suggestions included burning at the stake, flaying, Melisandre resurrecting him so that he could be hanged all over again, and various other courses of action which I shan't repeat, as it would violate the forum rules to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/1/2017 at 1:28 PM, RhaenysB said:

Olly absolutely deserved what he got. If he was a grown-up nobody would argue that. I don't see anybody complaining about what Alliser and the other men got. Olly was part of the same conspiracy and to make things worse, he was Jon's protege (like Jon used to be the Old Bear's). He didn't just betray a disrespectful kid who became lord commander undeservingly and didn't heed the advice of his seniors (like Alliser did), he betrayed his mentor who did nothing but help and guide him. So Olly deserved what he got. 

This is why Olly had to die. Jon was kind to him helped and protect him and Olly's way of repaying his kindness was to conspire against him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

This is why Olly had to die. Jon was kind to him helped and protect him and Olly's way of repaying his kindness was to conspire against him.

I can't really see an alternative to executing him, in the light of his behaviour.  He was completely unrepentant, shooting Jon a look of pure hatred at the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9-1-2017 at 0:27 PM, Nocturne said:

So what? Doesn't matter it he saw his parents getting murdered by wildings, that doesn't give him the right to kill Jon Snow who is NOT a wilding. It doesn't matter if he is a kid, murder a conscious one at that, cannot go unpunished.

Post like these pretty much show what's wrong with society nowadays..justifying murder..jesus fucking christ.

 

I think it's funny that you accuse me of justifying murder while I'm advocating against killing a child... you're the one advocating for it so who's justifying murder?

It's clear that you lack the ability or the will to even empathise with Olly if you don't understand why he did what he did. Of course what he did wasn't right, but that doesn't mean he should be killed for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, INCBlackbird said:

I think it's funny that you accuse me of justifying murder while I'm advocating against killing a child... you're the one advocating for it so who's justifying murder?

It's clear that you lack the ability or the will to even empathise with Olly if you don't understand why he did what he did. Of course what he did wasn't right, but that doesn't mean he should be killed for it.

Oh and what do you propose, that Jon should send him home without supper? No i do not empathise with murderers, its not like Oli did it for revenge against a Wilding, so no there's no argument you nob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Nocturne said:

Oh and what do you propose, that Jon should send him home without supper? No i do not empathise with murderers, its not like Oli did it for revenge against a Wilding, so no there's no argument you nob.

There's plenty of things he could have done, keeping him locked up for example, punishing him some other way... But even if there was no other choice for Jon but to kill a child that still doesn't mean he deserved it. Also... you say you don't empathise with murderers but Jon is a murderer too... I mean... the very thing you're advocating for is him murdering a child, that's a tad hypocritical if you ask me. Also, Olly did it because Jon swore to protect him but then turn arround and let the people in who killed and ate his parents. He's a traumatised child do you really expect him to think of the big picture like Jon does? did you when you were 12? I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Olly was a sworn member of the Night's Watch that murdered his own Lord Commander without proper cause. It was not like Jon was striving to become the Night's King of book lore (not frozen Darth Maul on the show), nor is he planning on, seemingly to abandon his vows and lead a wilding army to take back Winterfell from the Boltons either. Thorne, Olly and co knew about Hardhome and what happened and who they were fighting. They also knew about the Battle of the Fist of the First Men. They knew and they knew why the wildings were invited and came accross, through the wall with Jon not as invaders this time, but as refugees. Olly suffered and I understand his emotions but the battle/war that was fought between Mance Rayder led Wildings and the Realm of men was won, thanks to them at Castle Black and King Stannis (he was the true king of the Iron throne that never sat upon it). Olly had a tragic life which ended due to a tragic but unredeemable act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, I don't recall anyone complaining when Jon executed Janos Slynt for doing FAR less than what Olly did (Jon gave Slynt an order, Slynt refused to obey, and Jon executed him even though just before he did so Slynt recanted and said he would obey).

But maybe I missed that thread, I guess, where people were maybe complaining that Janos Slynt did not deserve to die.

I've seen every episode of Game of Thrones multiple times (probably an average of at least 4 or 5 viewings per episode), and I'm well aware that if you follow Olly's story carefully it's easy to understand why he did what he did, and easy to understand that in his heart he is NOT "evil."  But was I surprised when Jon executed him?  No, not at all.  Jon was raised by Ned to believe even mere deserters from the Night's Watch deserve to be executed (see Season 1, Episode 1), and what Olly did was obviously far worse than mere desertion, it was treason and murder of the Lord Commander, just like what was done by the brothers who killed Jeor Mormont, whom Jon ALSO killed.

Olly's story is tragic, to be sure, but what else was Jon supposed to do with him and the other conspirators?  Lock them up for the rest of their lives at Caslte Black?  Some people would say execution was more merciful, not to mention far more practical (the Night's Watch does NOT have the manpower or resources (including food) to be locking up non-productive people, feeding them and guarding them for decades, particularly in light of the fact that winter is here)  Clearly, the conspirators could NEVER be trusted again (including Olly), and I felt the show did a good job of showing that Jon took no pleasure in doing what he did, but felt it was his duty and was necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Olly didn't deserve to be a victim of bad writing.

People are forgetting, Jon Snow was a traitor. By aiding Stannis, who was considered a traitor and rebel by the Iron Crown, Jon brought the Night Watch into conflict with the Crown.  He has also broken his oaths by allowing the Wildings through, and giving them land to settle on, and by interfering with Northern politics (Jon has done more in the books).  The Night Watch is now considered hostile by loyal Crown forces. In the books, Cersei is plotting against Jon, before she gets arrested by the Faith. 

Ned Stark is a confessed traitor who admitted he was trying to steal the Crown away from Joffrey and give it to Stannis. Jon is seen as Ned's son. Sansa is accused of helping poison Joffrey.  Sansa is seen as Jon's half-sister.  This looks like the Starks are still helping Stannis.  Jon is bringing the Night Watch in to a conflict they have no business fighting in for his own personal reasons. 

Also, in the book, Jon's stabbing is not some careful laid out plan. It happens in the heat of the moment, right after he tells the Night Watch members he did something behind their backs, and now it has backfired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Simbacca said:

Olly didn't deserve to be a victim of bad writing.

People are forgetting, Jon Snow was a traitor. By aiding Stannis, who was considered a traitor and rebel by the Iron Crown, Jon brought the Night Watch into conflict with the Crown.  He has also broken his oaths by allowing the Wildings through, and giving them land to settle on, and by interfering with Northern politics (Jon has done more in the books).  The Night Watch is now considered hostile by loyal Crown forces. In the books, Cersei is plotting against Jon, before she gets arrested by the Faith. 

Ned Stark is a confessed traitor who admitted he was trying to steal the Crown away from Joffrey and give it to Stannis. Jon is seen as Ned's son. Sansa is accused of helping poison Joffrey.  Sansa is seen as Jon's half-sister.  This looks like the Starks are still helping Stannis.  Jon is bringing the Night Watch in to a conflict they have no business fighting in for his own personal reasons. 

Also, in the book, Jon's stabbing is not some careful laid out plan. It happens in the heat of the moment, right after he tells the Night Watch members he did something behind their backs, and now it has backfired.

In the books or show? Stannis saved the Watch and yes, actually the North from the Wildings by helping stop them at the wall. In the book, Jon's actions, including his aid and council to Stannis would be more grounds for what was done to him than in the show. The show murder of Jon made him look more like a martyr than in the book. Olly is a show creation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Simbacca said:

People are forgetting, Jon Snow was a traitor. By aiding Stannis, who was considered a traitor and rebel by the Iron Crown, Jon brought the Night Watch into conflict with the Crown.  He has also broken his oaths by allowing the Wildings through, and giving them land to settle on, and by interfering with Northern politics (Jon has done more in the books).  The Night Watch is now considered hostile by loyal Crown forces. In the books, Cersei is plotting against Jon, before she gets arrested by the Faith. 

The NW is not choosing sides in the politics of the seven kingdoms, which means that they don't have to give a flying f*** what the crown considers Stannis. Jon aids Stannis because he thinks it is to the benefit of the NW. That's his job and doesn't conflict with his vows at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Olly was right in wanting to fight the Wildings when they came as invaders on the show. The Thenns (show deviation from books) pretty much guaranteed that. They were monsters and then we had Ygritte shooting everyone she saw except Gilly and baby Sam. Tormund was killing his villagers too. Olly had hate and bitterness in him, he at the end was pushed over the edge by Thorne who seemingly sought to use him as some legitimacy in killing Jon (so long as Olly took part) because of his sad personal story. Show creation all the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎1‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 7:20 AM, SeanF said:

I was struck by the degree of hatred out there for Olly.

99% of Show watchers were delighted by his death;  indeed, argued that he should have received even worse punishment.  Suggestions included burning at the stake, flaying, Melisandre resurrecting him so that he could be hanged all over again, and various other courses of action which I shan't repeat, as it would violate the forum rules to do so.

I remember one particularly disturbed individual suggesting that it would be just wonderful if the first scene in season 6 was Ghost eating Olly.  And then throughout the season whenever we saw Ghost he'd be chewing on a bone as nod, if you will, to the character.  People like that make me sick!

I think the character of Olly makes sense on paper.  His motivations were certainly clear.  Jon's desire to adopt an orphan as a surrogate son/ little brother certainly makes sense since he recently lost his family and is living in a celibate order.  And a close personal connection could have made the differences in perspective more emotionally engaging and the tragic ending more tragic.

However, the writing was so dreadfully hamfisted it was painful to watch.  And the character was superfluous to the plot, which is very frustrating when they cut so much of ADWD but made room for Bobblehead Olly.  That, I think, is the reason for the Olly hate.  Not the fact that he went to extreme measures to not have to live under the same roof as the guy who ate his parents.

12 hours ago, Rhollo said:

The NW is not choosing sides in the politics of the seven kingdoms, which means that they don't have to give a flying f*** what the crown considers Stannis. Jon aids Stannis because he thinks it is to the benefit of the NW. That's his job and doesn't conflict with his vows at all.

I'd disagree but I'm too intimidated by your avatar. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎1‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 8:47 AM, Rhollo said:

The NW is not choosing sides in the politics of the seven kingdoms, which means that they don't have to give a flying f*** what the crown considers Stannis. Jon aids Stannis because he thinks it is to the benefit of the NW. That's his job and doesn't conflict with his vows at all.

The Night Watch is not independent.  It is part of the Seven Kingdoms. That has been established since the beginning or else they wouldn't have cared about Robert and the claims to the throne. Their job is to protect the Seven Kingdoms from Wildings and The White Walkers/Others, but not get involved in the politics of Westeros.  They are left alone to do their job.  If Stannis and his army joined the Night Watch, then no problem, but the Night Watch is aiding him in his fight against the Iron Throne.  The Night Watch is choosing sides.  And The Night Watch is suppose to keep the Wildings out of Westeros, but now are letting them in.  Jon is breaking vows and some Night Watch are letting him get away with it because they like him.  But not everybody does.  Jon is a traitor.  Are the Night Watch members suppose to follow their boss to commit treason, when they have no desire to be part of Jon's criminal actions.

EDIT:

The events about why Jon was stabbed and who stabbed him are different in the books. Jon was being secretive in the books and was doing other things not shown in the TV series.  The TV series wanted to have the stabbing, but failed to show correctly what led to it.

2nd Edit:

The Night Watch is made up of men from all the Kingdoms and different noble families.  The give up their family/kingdom loyalties when they join the Watch.  If the Night Watch got political, the Night Watch would have to fight each other, because now different kingdoms and families are now at war.  It is more in the book, but Jon was getting involved in politics, doing things to help the Starks. Jon was not being neutral.  He was an oathbreaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Simbacca said:

The Night Watch is not independent.  It is part of the Seven Kingdoms. That has been established since the beginning or else they wouldn't have cared about Robert and the claims to the throne. Their job is to protect the Seven Kingdoms from Wildings and The White Walkers/Others, but not get involved in the politics of Westeros.  They are left alone to do their job.  If Stannis and his army joined the Night Watch, then no problem, but the Night Watch is aiding him in his fight against the Iron Throne.  The Night Watch is choosing sides.  And The Night Watch is suppose to keep the Wildings out of Westeros, but now are letting them in.  Jon is breaking vows and some Night Watch are letting him get away with it because they like him.  But not everybody does.  Jon is a traitor.  Are the Night Watch members suppose to follow their boss to commit treason, when they have no desire to be part of Jon's criminal actions.

EDIT:

The events about why Jon was stabbed and who stabbed him are different in the books. Jon was being secretive in the books and was doing other things not shown in the TV series.  The TV series wanted to have the stabbing, but failed to show correctly what led to it.

2nd Edit:

The Night Watch is made up of men from all the Kingdoms and different noble families.  The give up their family/kingdom loyalties when they join the Watch.  If the Night Watch got political, the Night Watch would have to fight each other, because now different kingdoms and families are now at war.  It is more in the book, but Jon was getting involved in politics, doing things to help the Starks. Jon was not being neutral.  He was an oathbreaker.

Yeah but, your wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Simbacca said:

Wrong about what?     

About pretty much everything you said.

1) Jon did not break his vows. He was ordered by his superior officer to infiltrate the Wildlings, even to go as far as to kill his commander. Anything Jon did during his time with the wildlings was a direct result of this order. 

2) Jon, nor the Night watch, never allied themselves with Stannis. Yes, they provided him shelter and food, after Stannis had come to Jon's rescue. Nothing more. They never choose sides. 

3) The wall, and more importantly the Night Watch, was not originally intended as a force to keep out the wildlings. It was built to hold back the others. 

Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come

There is no mention of Wildlings in the Vows of the night watch. I will admit, that over the course of a 1,000 years, when the Others became stuff of legends and folklore, and the Wildlings became the only tangible threat beyond the wall, the Night's Watch role slowly evolved. However, this was never incorporated into the vows themselves, and the Night's Watch was only following the orders of the Lord Commander. When Jon Snow became Lord Commander, he earned the right to change that order, as he saw fit. 

 

On the show, Jon has never committed treason. He did die at his post, and thus was released from his vows. It wasn't until after his resurrection that Jon got into politics.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...