Val is Jon’s true Queen. Part trois.

[Lord Varys]

33 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Yeah, she implies she knows something about the letter, right?  Tells Jon to look to the skies then come to her or something?  But, like the daggers in the dark (and all her visions, really), I don't think she's aware of the specifics of the letter.  My distinct impression is she storms off as a reaction to the letter, in which case consulting her "Lord" and seeking Stannis would be her intent.

Well, it is open to debate. Did she just see a raven arriving or was this a complex symbolic visions depicting that it was written by Ramsay and full of lies? Could very well be.

33 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

LOL, that was almost poetic of you - well done!  Anyway, I think this is the basis of our disagreement.

It has mostly to do with the way I imagine the George's version of the Shireen thing. 

Spoiler

If the show did one thing right then it would be Stannis breaking by that thing, and if it is well who pushes him to go through with it then she herself is not going through with it.

I imagine Stannis is going to kill Mel immediately after it became apparent that Shireen's death didn't have the desired effect (whatever that was supposed to be) with her never seeing it coming because it is part of her ultimate self-deception/fundamental error.

That would also fit well with Stannis' misogynistic character: 'I never killed my brother, the evil woman made me do it. And now she made me kill my only child and heir.'

43 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Count me as decidedly not a fan of Drogo-Jon. 

I'm not a fan of that, either. It is just a possible additional complication. One that might indeed involve Bran/Bloodraven intervention. Or not. As I think I've said already: There is also a chance that Jon's resurrection reactivates the skinchanger link or that killing Ghost might result in Jon's body reverting back to his human body. We'll have to wait and see.

But considering there is not going to be some super resurrection plan and spell my guess is that this whole thing might drag on. Especially if the plan is to set Jon on a new path after his resurrection. Whatever that might be.

[Makk]

20 minutes ago, LifeRuiner said:

But how do you explain Val's absence from the tv show and from the original book outline? 

I think that Val is, I'm really sorry, the much more tasteful equivalent (by a factor of a million) of Shae and Daario. She is there to provide romantic interest to one of the three mains until this main meets their fate or endgame, so to speak. And this fate wouldn't necessarily be another romance. It may be even death or something else endgamey, but the bottom line is, Val is there for the middle act only.

Another thing, there's no real buildup or progression of their relationship but for these few lines. Jon wants her and he idealizes her, but he chooses his vows, and this is all I'm reading here. 

I wouldn't have come into a thread of ship appreciation with this (because I really do like Val and her presence in Jon's life), but unless I'm wrong, you seem to want to discuss Jon's romantic endgame with this post title. 

I don't think you need to explain those factors. I wouldn't read too much into the show. There are so many things that are completely different, more so with the stuff in books 4 and 5. Perhaps it gives a hint on some things but in no way would I use it as proof, or even really an argument, of something.

As for the original outline, over 25+ years and a million words, some things change. I don't actually see who, if anyone, Jon ends up wedding as that important in the broad terms of the plot. It is more a fine detail. I realise he originally wrote about Jon and Arya. But I'm not even convinced that idea lasted very long at all. All of the evidence seems more like very close siblings. From memory the outline claimed they would struggle with their longings for each other until they learn the truth of Jon's birth and can wed, this hasn't happened. They miss each other but not once has it been a romantic longing. And where is the love triangle with Tyrion added in? I think George, thankfully, changed that very early.

[DMC]

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, it is open to debate. Did she just see a raven arriving or was this a complex symbolic visions depicting that it was written by Ramsay and full of lies? Could very well be.

Certainly is up for debate - what do you think her reason is for storming off if she knows the PL is just Ramsay lies?

21 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It has mostly to do with the way I imagine the George's version of the Shireen thing. 

I don't think the Shireen thing and Mel changing her mind about Stannis are mutually exclusive.  She grows more independent from Stannis throughout ADWD - firmly stating her place is at the Wall, the whole Mance thing (whether Stannis is aware of the switch or not I do not think he would approve of the Arya mission), and, most importantly, her persistent effort and interest in earning Jon's trust.  I think one of the main aspects of including the Mel POV is to demonstrate she's not nearly as much of a fanatic/fundamentalist as depicted in the earlier volumes and is much more malleable to her and everybody else's role in the war with the Others.  Stannis killing Mel due to Shireen's death does seems to fit.  However:

Spoiler

The other good thing about the show version is it's done for such a stupid reason we have no idea what the circumstances will be to motivate the burning.  I do agree that this "breaking" Stannis is apt.

 

28 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There is also a chance that Jon's resurrection reactivates the skinchanger link or that killing Ghost might result in Jon's body reverting back to his human body. We'll have to wait and see.

But considering there is not going to be some super resurrection plan and spell my guess is that this whole thing might drag on. Especially if the plan is to set Jon on a new path after his resurrection. Whatever that might be.

I like the killing Ghost angle much more as it makes much more sense symbolically and narratively.  My hope, however, is obviously that the resurrection does not drag on.  My expectation is Jon will be resurrected by midway through the book at the latest.  Anything else really slows the momentum - even by the series' standards.

[Makk]

If Ghost is killed in the resurrection, we assume some of Ghost is going to live on in Jon. Are we going to see a much more instinctive or feral Jon than we have?

[LifeRuiner]

5 minutes ago, Makk said:

I honestly have no idea what's wrong with the formatting here.

[Lord Varys]

30 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Certainly is up for debate - what do you think her reason is for storming off if she knows the PL is just Ramsay lies?

I just reread the chapter. There is no mentioning of Mel storming off. She is at the far end of the hall and is just gone when Jon looks for her again at the end of the speech. Only Bowen and company are seen slipping out.

I don't think we can infer anything from that. She might have decided to prepare Selyse for the bad news, ensuring her that they are not, in fact, true. She has to keep Stannis' cause alive at the Wall because it is very much her own cause.

Quote

I don't think the Shireen thing and Mel changing her mind about Stannis are mutually exclusive.  She grows more independent from Stannis throughout ADWD - firmly stating her place is at the Wall, the whole Mance thing (whether Stannis is aware of the switch or not I do not think he would approve of the Arya mission), and, most importantly, her persistent effort and interest in earning Jon's trust. I think one of the main aspects of including the Mel POV is to demonstrate she's not nearly as much of a fanatic/fundamentalist as depicted in the earlier volumes and is much more malleable to her and everybody else's role in the war with the Others.  Stannis killing Mel due to Shireen's death does seems to fit.

If you go back to ADwD then it is clear that Stannis intends to return to Castle Black and the Wall. Mel staying there does not suggest any new distance between these two, and neither does her interest in Jon. He is apparently important.

It is implied that Stannis did approve of the Mance deception. She would not have done something like that behind her back nor would Stannis have suffered a man like Rattleshirt around him had he not known he wasn't Rattleshirt.

Mel's POV showed that she is not as evil as many people thought she was but it also revealed that she is as fundamentalist and fanatic as she appears. I mean, she actually prays for the sunrise and is literally afraid of the dark. We see no hint that she contemplates that Stannis could fail or that Stannis isn't Azor Ahai. George could easily enough have made her somewhat unsure about that while pretending that she is convinced - say, by remembering how she originally concluded that Stannis was the guy.

My personal guess is that the whole Azor Ahai thing is not going to just switch from Stannis to Jon not just because Stannis is still around but because we are nowhere near the finale yet. If the truth came to light now then the Others could perhaps be defeated before they make their final move. And that would make for a boring story.

I think we'll see a lot of confusion, good intentions, and grave mistakes happening in the Wall story, leading in the end to the success of the Others rather than their defeat. A great way to play this would be the guys actually coming up with a grand plan that should for all intents and purposes work because they have finally figured out what they seem to want and how they are going to attack and also have the means to thwart their plans - and then something goes very wrong, everything unravels, and the Wall comes tumbling down.

Quote

I like the killing Ghost angle much more as it makes much more sense symbolically and narratively.  My hope, however, is obviously that the resurrection does not drag on.  My expectation is Jon will be resurrected by midway through the book at the latest.  Anything else really slows the momentum - even by the series' standards.

Oh, if I had to make a prediction I'd say the resurrection should take place somewhere in the first quarter/third of the book, with the reunion of body and spirit (if that's a problem) taking place in the second half of the book. First the Wall chapters would have to deal with the coup, its aftermath, and possibly the Jeyne/Justin/Tycho plot, followed by the revelation that Stannis is not, in fact, dead.

Jon's funeral could easily be postponed for quite some time and depending how the plot develops it might only then that Mel realizes he can be resurrected.

Killing Ghost isn't actually my favorite considering that part of Jon's time in the wolf should be him realizing/accepting/fully activating his powers as a skinchanger. Presumably there is a reason why he is a skinchanger.

[Light a wight tonight]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

Those are not the same. The fall from a tower is not necessarily mortal and neither is a blow with an axe if you use the correct end. The wounds Jon received should be lethal in Martinworld. And if received much more wounds then he might already be dead.

 

There's nothing magical about a knifing that makes it more lethal than a long fall onto a stone courtyard or blunt-force trauma to the head. You're simply rationalizing.

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, Light a wight tonight said:

There's nothing magical about a knifing that makes it more lethal than a long fall onto a stone courtyard or blunt-force trauma to the head. You're simply rationalizing.

Nope. I know a little bit about ancient/medieval medicine and gut wounds. They couldn't heal any of those. And Bowen buried his dagger in Jon's stomach. Westerosi medicine is more or less based on that. We only get rather primitive conventional medicine. The maesters can heal superficial wounds and broken bones. But that's it, really. There are no hints that they have good surgeons. Women still die in childbirth on a regular basis and Prince Baelon Targaryen even died due to a ruptured appendix. They are not very good with this kind of thing.

Neither are stab wounds between the shoulder blades easily healed if they go deep enough to pierce the lungs. And the neck would really seems to have severed a crucial blood vessel. Else it makes little sense that Jon fainted as quickly as he did, right?

Magic could perhaps do something about all of that. But it needs preparation and usually does more harm than good (e.g. Drogo; Gregor Clegane). Somehow I don't think people have the time to keep Jon alive until such a time as the R'hllor ex machina sorceress has the time to heal him the Moqorro way. That would leave him a smoking ruin anyway, if Victarion is an indication.

[The Fattest Leech]

On 7/11/2016 at 8:49 PM, Lord Varys said:

Nope. I know a little bit about ancient/medieval medicine and gut wounds. They couldn't heal any of those. And Bowen buried his dagger in Jon's stomach.

~snipped~

Sorry, Varys, but not all gruesome medieval and back stab wounds are lethal.

https://writersforensicsblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/stab-wounds-don’t-always-kill/

Henry V arrow to the face successful removal video

 

[Lord Varys]

4 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Sorry, Varys, but not all gruesome medieval and back stab wounds are lethal.

https://writersforensicsblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/stab-wounds-don’t-always-kill/

Where did I mention the word 'all' above? I'm talking specifically about Jon's wounds not some lucky coincidences. You can even survive a shot or stab wound through the brain and suffer no lasting brain damage (or rather, no lasting side effects) under the right conditions. But those are extremely lucky accidents.

If we want to play the game of lucky accidents we have to assume the following:

1. Jon's neck would was basically just a superficial cut despite giving a different appearance.

2. The stomach wound was neither deep as suggested by the word 'buried' nor injuring any major organs in the gut which knives driven into the stomach usually do.

3. The stab wound between the shoulder blades was a lucky accident, too, damaging nothing of importance.

4. The fourth knife Jon never even felt dealt him also only a superficial wound.

5. There was no fifth, sixth, seventh, or twentieth knife after Jon had fainted.

6. The daggers were all sterile and Jon's body is later stored under favorable conditions so that none of those superficial/non-lethal wounds festers.

If you assume all that I have this beautiful palace in Valyria I'd like to sell to you...

[The Fattest Leech]

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

Where did I mention the word 'all' above? I'm talking specifically about Jon's wounds not some lucky coincidences. You can even survive a shot or stab wound through the brain and suffer no lasting brain damage (or rather, no lasting side effects) under the right conditions. But those are extremely lucky accidents.

If we want to play the game of lucky accidents we have to assume the following:

1. Jon's neck would was basically just a superficial cut despite giving a different appearance.

2. The stomach wound was neither deep as suggested by the word 'buried' nor injuring any major organs in the gut which knives driven into the stomach usually do.

3. The stab wound between the shoulder blades was a lucky accident, too, damaging nothing of importance.

4. The fourth knife Jon never even felt dealt him also only a superficial wound.

5. There was no fifth, sixth, seventh, or twentieth knife after Jon had fainted.

6. The daggers were all sterile and Jon's body is later stored under favorable conditions so that none of those superficial/non-lethal wounds festers.

If you assume all that I have this beautiful palace in Valyria I'd like to sell to you...

If we want to play the game of lucky accidents we have to assume the following:

It is not all a game of lucky accidents. I am sure that whatever wounds Jon has will have to be treated seriously, quickly and probably for an extended period of time.

George pulls from real history to add to his story (pretty common knowledge, yes). He knows and researched medieval type battles and fighting and wounds. The case I posted is a fairly well known case and it is extreme... but it could be done. You mentioned your knowledge of medieval medicine and gut wounds. I was adding to it because maybe you hadn't seen this before.

1. Jon's neck would was basically just a superficial cut despite giving a different appearance. Yes, it seemed very superficial and probably is since Jon was able to feel the blood well, as opposed to gush or a lightheaded bleeding out from an artery cut from that first slash. This is how the first slash is described:

When Wick Whittlestick slashed at his throat, the word turned into a grunt. Jon twisted from the knife, just enough so it barely grazed his skin. He cut me. When he put his hand to the side of his neck, blood welled between his fingers. "Why?"

"For the Watch." Wick slashed at him again. This time Jon caught his wrist and bent his arm back until he dropped the dagger.

 

And I have to admit, after all the re-reads of that scene, and the mysterious people that went missing in the scenes just before this, paired with the fact that the mutineers are acting strangely in their own actions, "The gangling steward backed away, his hands upraised as if to say, Not me, it was not me", and, "Then Bowen Marsh stood there before him, tears running down his cheeks,", I am starting to think someone else is behind it for other/additional reasons.

2. The stomach wound was neither deep as suggested by the word 'buried' nor injuring any major organs in the gut which knives driven into the stomach usually do. This is a real possibility because Jon was more than likely wearing his mail and boiled plated leather (and maybe his cloak?) So there would be a few layers to go through which could minimize the gutting damage, and back stab damage, from a knife as opposed to a longsword. 

3. The stab wound between the shoulder blades was a lucky accident, too, damaging nothing of importance. See above.

4. The fourth knife Jon never even felt dealt him also only a superficial wound. This is where everyone is at the same level ground of speculation here. I used to think that the mutiny played out just as it does on page. Nothing to it, nothing more behind it. I have a reason to speculate that when Jon said "Ghost", it was because he saw Ghost coming to his aide as he, and Greywind with Robb, Nymeria with Arya and Shaggy with Rickon in the crypts (that was a little too wild), are "supposed" to do because of their bonds. Someone could easily have let Ghost out as Raynald tried to do for Greywind and Robb.

5. There was no fifth, sixth, seventh, or twentieth knife after Jon had fainted. The mutineers could have been stopped by some of the wildlings or other loyal NW men... and possibly Ghost. Yes. It is quite plausible that the stab attempts stopped there. It is actually more likely they did because Jon fell over "dead" and the amount of support that is still around Jon outnumbers the small handful of mutineers. Hell, there could have been a fifth stab attempt that slashed Jon in the thigh because that is where the dagger landed as the mutineer was being pulled away.

6. The daggers were all sterile and Jon's body is later stored under favorable conditions so that none of those superficial/non-lethal wounds festers. Nope. But aside from germs being harder to multiply in the freezing cold temperatures, Jon has at least one witch with him now, if not two.

If you assume all that I have this beautiful palace in Valyria I'd like to sell to you... I'd like a tour first. Ya know, to kick the dragons wings and all

[bemused]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Where did I mention the word 'all' above? I'm talking specifically about Jon's wounds not some lucky coincidences. You can even survive a shot or stab wound through the brain and suffer no lasting brain damage (or rather, no lasting side effects) under the right conditions. But those are extremely lucky accidents.

If we want to play the game of lucky accidents we have to assume the following:

1. Jon's neck would was basically just a superficial cut despite giving a different appearance.

2. The stomach wound was neither deep as suggested by the word 'buried' nor injuring any major organs in the gut which knives driven into the stomach usually do.

3. The stab wound between the shoulder blades was a lucky accident, too, damaging nothing of importance.

4. The fourth knife Jon never even felt dealt him also only a superficial wound.

5. There was no fifth, sixth, seventh, or twentieth knife after Jon had fainted.

6. The daggers were all sterile and Jon's body is later stored under favorable conditions so that none of those superficial/non-lethal wounds festers.

If you assume all that I have this beautiful palace in Valyria I'd like to sell to you...

1.Jon's neck wound was a graze and didn't impede him in disarming Wick

2. We don't know i) the length of Bowen's dagger.. ii) how many layers of clothing Jon was wearing, or of what material (Boiled leather, furs, mail ?) But we do know Jon would be foolish to wear no protective gear surrounded by wildlings not all of whom he had yet "won to him"

3. We don't know if it was a stab wound , and neither does Jon, he can only assume based on the fact that 2 of the 4 men he noticed have already stabbed him. He doesn't know who struck him, or with what.. (Clever use of POV)

4. See 3 . Now Jon is face down expecting a fourth dagger. He never felt one and we don't know if it even materialized because George takes us out of the action.

5. Without a POV, it's very premature, if not foolish, to imagine any more knives.

6. There is unlikely to be any need to "store his body", and I'm sure boiled wine is available for sterilization(as there was the last time he was wounded.) With  a "warrior" witch (healer) close at hand, there could well be access to the remedies that saved Mance's life when he was attacked by the shadow cat.

 

 

[The Fattest Leech]

And just one more thing on if Jon is Ned-Dead or not, GRRM answer to that question in an interview back in 2011:

http://www.ew.com/article/2011/07/21/dance-with-dragons-shocking-twist-g

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: So why did you kill Jon Snow?
GEORGE R.R. MARTIN: Oh, you think he’s dead, do you?

The reasons and methods for Cat to LSH are an entirely different set of events and reasons than what happened to Jon.

Berric is NOT the same as Jon either. Berric was there to give the intro to Lady Stoneheart.

The Hound "died", while Sandor returns.

Aegon is still debatable... as so many have already done

Daenerys had her dragon puberty earlier in the books with the Drogo pit and she was "reborn" just fine, if not better. Jon is about to have his "dragon puberty" take place and there is no reason why he shouldn't come back relatively whole... of not a little more wild .

But to the OP, yes, clearly I think Val is important to Jon because of political reasons, mutual attraction reasons, and restorative abilities that will be in dire need rather quickly. I have happily posted several book and GRRM references that argue my point in detail. To have Jon go as far as he has in the books only to die-dead and either stay dead or rezz back up as a Lady Stoneheart 2.0 makes zero narrative sense and wastes a massive amount of book space in doing so. Jon is a hero whether we all like it or not

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I just reread the chapter. There is no mentioning of Mel storming off. She is at the far end of the hall and is just gone when Jon looks for her again at the end of the speech. Only Bowen and company are seen slipping out.

I don't think we can infer anything from that. She might have decided to prepare Selyse for the bad news, ensuring her that they are not, in fact, true. She has to keep Stannis' cause alive at the Wall because it is very much her own cause.

Whatever you want to call it, both her arrival and departure are noted by Jon.  Running to inform/reassure Selyse is clearly what Jon assumes she's doing, but I doubt that's her first concern - particularly when she asks Jon to "send for her" once the he gets the letter.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Mel staying there does not suggest any new distance between these two, and neither does her interest in Jon. He is apparently important.

For me, considering her previous depiction, her interest and clear belief Jon is somehow "important" does demonstrate increased independence from Stannis in ADWD.  So, too, does her apparent disinterest in his Winterfell campaign and insistence on staying at the Wall.  Obviously we interpret things differently.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is implied that Stannis did approve of the Mance deception.

Not sure how it's implied but I tend to agree Stannis is aware of the Mance switch.  As I said, though, I do not think he approved - or would have - of the Arya mission.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Mel's POV showed that she is not as evil as many people thought she was but it also revealed that she is as fundamentalist and fanatic as she appears.

What I meant by fanatic - which admittedly was probably the wrong language - was the POV shows she has far less certitude in her interpretations and subsequent beliefs internally.  Her absolute confidence in her "prophecies" or claims is explicitly shown as an image she strategically projects to others (including Jon).  Thus, I think it's quite possible she reevaluates her basic conclusions due to future visions and/or events.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

My personal guess is that the whole Azor Ahai thing is not going to just switch from Stannis to Jon not just because Stannis is still around but because we are nowhere near the finale yet. If the truth came to light now then the Others could perhaps be defeated before they make their final move. And that would make for a boring story.

I utterly fail to see how Mel changing her thoughts on exactly who AA is would have any effect on how to defeat the Others or why this would make the story boring.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Killing Ghost isn't actually my favorite considering that part of Jon's time in the wolf should be him realizing/accepting/fully activating his powers as a skinchanger.

Oh, killing Ghost certainly isn't my favorite - as I intimated earlier I really don't have one - just was saying I prefer it to the Drogo-Jon scenario as it does have some appeal in terms of sacrificing the Stark/First Men aspect of his identity, the pretty on-the-nose "ghost" symbolism, etc.

[bemused]

Good grief! sacrificing Jon's Stark / First men aspect ? Nevah! That's indispensible.

[The Fattest Leech]

11 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

~snipped~

Oh, killing Ghost certainly isn't my favorite - as I intimated earlier I really don't have one - just was saying I prefer it to the Drogo-Jon scenario as it does have some appeal in terms of sacrificing the Stark/First Men aspect of his identity, the pretty on-the-nose "ghost" symbolism, etc.

Noooopppeee. You can't sacrifice Jon's Stark/First Man connections. I mean, Ghost and Jon are so close they finish each others' sandwiches.

 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Noooopppeee. You can't sacrifice Jon's Stark/First Man connections. I mean, Ghost and Jon are so close they finish each others' sandwiches.

 

11 minutes ago, bemused said:

Good grief! sacrificing Jon's Stark / First men aspect ? Nevah! That's indispensible.

My gods, it's as if I threatened to kill your pupp....er, bad example.  I'd emphasize I'm merely responding to the idea.  And yes, I dare to blaspheme and say that a sacrificing of his FM connection to resurrect Jon does have merits/make some sense.

[Makk]

I don't know how exactly how Jon will be brought back, only that he will. I do believe he is most likely dead-dead rather than badly wounded, and will therefore be resurrected, although I wouldn't 100% rule out it being a non-mortal wound.

I believe Lady Stoneheart is quite misunderstood, far more capable of free thought than people are assuming, and if there wasn't such a large geographical distance between them I would favor her as the most likely source of Jon's resurrection. It may still be her. I think the resurrections for LSH and Beric come from the Old Gods rather than R'holler.

Ghost most likely has some role in it, but even if he does die as a sacrifice, I do not believe that severs Jons connect to the Old Gods, I don't even begin to understand that point of view, Ghost will then be part of him and he will have an even stronger connection.

I do think Val is likely to continue to have the large role she had in ADoD and will likely become Jon's romantic interest, although I admit this could be wishful thinking as it is what I hope will happen. It would shatter me if she became Jon's Nissa Nissa 

I think it possible Melisandre will burn Shireen to either try to bring back Jon, or alternatively trying to bring back Stannis after believing him dead and having Jon wake up from her ritual. Anyway, if Melisandre is responsible I believe it will be by burning Shireen but at the same time she may attempt it and it could fail with his resurrection enacted some other way.

Most likely cases imo

1) Bran and/or Bloodraven (possibly to do with Theon sacrifice)

2) LSH

3) Melisandre

4) Non-mortal wound

 

[Darkstream]

5 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

 

My gods, it's as if I threatened to kill your pupp....er, bad example.  I'd emphasize I'm merely responding to the idea.  And yes, I dare to blaspheme and say that a sacrificing of his FM connection to resurrect Jon does have merits/make some sense.

 I knew you were in trouble as soon as I read that. I can't deny that I was ready to jump on you too, despite somewhat agreeing with you. It's something that I, admittedly, am keeping my eyes sealed tight to, until/if I read it in GRRM's own words.

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Makk said:

Ghost most likely has some role in it, but even if he does die as a sacrifice, I do not believe that severs Jons connect to the Old Gods, I don't even begin to understand that point of view, Ghost will then be part of him and he will have an even stronger connection.

Ok, to clarify what I mean by sacrificing the FM connection:  First and foremost as a symbol that would be a precursor to the RLJ revelation and perhaps even subsequent dragon-rider Jon.  Second, as a legitimate sacrifice that we have seen serves collectively as a large aspect of FM culture, a prerequisite for the whole "only death can pay for life" standard, and the AA myth.  The sacrifice of Ghost has a significance that would take precedence over any for Jon save Arya.  And, finally, yes, as severing his connection to the "old gods" since, as LV said upthread and I agree with, the old gods are simply greenseers (and perhaps the incorporeal connection to nature), and Ghost's death would likely be an end to his warging gifts.