Will Jon marry Val?

[The Fattest Leech]

52 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I'm not going lie, it's been a while since I read the books, and I barely remember anything

This admission is going to make discussion on this topic difficult, to be honest, because there are many pieces of information from Jon I in ASOS, all the way through Jon XIII in Dance.

52 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

But looking at your summary of events, I see nothing that contradicts my statement. You said it yourself: the Wildlings were not given a choice in kneeling. They've not chosen Val or Mel or Stannis to be their new King; they chose survival.

The free folk also did things they did not want to do in that same scene, like supposedly accept the red god as their new god. Jon notices that many run off instead of doing that, and those that remained only faked the acceptance because they went back to worshiping the old gods. They were desperate and did what they did for survival in the moment.

52 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I suppose you could make a case for Stannis being the new Wildling King, since he is now the strongest/most powerful figure around, but that still doesn't make Val anything.

Nope, that is not how they choose kings. Remember, Mance had to beat down like three guys to get to his position. Mance (indisguise) tetsed Jon in the battleyard and chose not to kill him. Everyone saw that and it meant something.

52 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I'll turn your question around - why follow Val? I'm sure there are plenty of other strong warrior woman amongst the Wildlings, men too. I've not seen any indication that the Wildlings see her as as Mance's successor, or that they'll submit to whomever she marries. All I see is the Wildlings having a growing respect for Jon.

They do, and a re-read may refresh your memory on some of the extra points I am talking about. Jon also chose Val. He has already "stolen" Val and she is now his right hand woman. They will also follow her for that reason. Remember when Mance tells Jon to treat Dalla as you would any queen? That was back in ASOS, but it still rings true within the culture. Even Wun Wun knows this

52 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Also, it's in the Southroner's interests for the Wildlings to assimilate. The Wildlings still want to remain free from the King's laws, so why should they change their behaviour just because one of their own marries a kneeler?

ALL of Westeros is about to change. There is no way that with the incoming invasion of dragons, lunatic pirates, and Others that things are going to stay the same. EVERY ONE is going to have to open their eyes to see what really matters. Humanity. That is one reason for the free folk to have one of their own as a leader. With all the discmboobulation happening, they need a familair face (in the least) that they know, they chose, the followed, and they trust. They chose Mance, and Mance chose Dalla, and one is dead and the other possibly soon, so that leaves the next best thing... Val.

And remember,we already have seen the free folk assimilate in to the schedule and norms at Castle Black without any issue... well, the only issue is coming from the ones who were taught that they are the bad guys because, as LC Mormont and Jon both say in different occasions, they are part of the realms of men and need protecting all the same. And we al love us some LC Mormont, right? And he wasn't and "oathbreaker", right?

Also, whoever gets Winterfell gets Val. She is apparently of some high value in a southroners eyes if Val is seated in the stronghold of the north without even a "husband" yet. Stannis and/or Selyse keep changing who they think will marry Val, but what never changes is Val is always at Winterfell in the deal first.

• "for the surest way to seal a new alliance is with a marriage. I mean to wed my Lord of Winterfell to this wildling princess."
• [Jon] I do not require men to kneel, but they do need to obey."
• Val had reminded him of that, on his last visit with her. "Free folk and kneelers are more alike than not, Jon Snow. Men are men and women women, no matter which side of the Wall we were born on. Good men and bad, heroes and villains, men of honor, liars, cravens, brutes … we have plenty, as do you."

52 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Re: unity and equality: there wouldn't be either if just the Wildlings assimilate. True unity and equality would be if there was change on both sides - i.e. if Westeros makes changes as well, in order to accommodate the Wildilings.

Yes, that is the point I have made, or more importantly the books have made, time and time again with many different aspects of understanding. Sam tells Jon that history is skewed, that we don't know what really is truth or not. Ygritte tells Jon (us) that the free folk know things the kneelers have forgotten. Part of that understanding will have to come from the idiots like Marsh, maesters, Old Nan, etc to STOP telling false stories about how the wildlings are monsters who eat babies and drink blood and blah de blah de blah. That will have to happen in addition to the free folk doing their share of integration.

Again, like before, I am not saying this is going to be Disney easy, it will take some work and firm leadership and maybe a generation to two before it smoothes out, but George had addressed this in real life so I am sure he will be realistic about it in the story as well.

• "The Others." Sam licked his lips. "They are mentioned in the annals, though not as often as I would have thought. The annals I've found and looked at, that is. There's more I haven't found, I know. Some of the older books are falling to pieces. The pages crumble when I try and turn them. And the really old books … either they have crumbled all away or they are buried somewhere that I haven't looked yet or … well, it could be that there are no such books and never were. The oldest histories we have were written after the Andals came to Westeros. The First Men only left us runes on rocks, so everything we think we know about the Age of Heroes and the Dawn Age and the Long Night comes from accounts set down by septons thousands of years later. There are archmaesters at the Citadel who question all of it. Those old histories are full of kings who reigned for hundreds of years, and knights riding around a thousand years before there were knights. You know the tales, Brandon the Builder, Symeon Star-Eyes, Night's King … we say that you're the nine-hundred-and-ninety-eighth Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, but the oldest list I've found shows six hundred seventy-four commanders, which suggests that it was written during—"

I see you mentioned that you have not read the books in a while. Unless you can remember these things, such as the ADWD/Jon III chapter I mentioned with the kneeling and Val, and also how Sigorn makes the strong statements about free folk/Thenns following an example, then this conversation can't really go very far. Not trying to sound rude, I'm too happy drunk for that, but just being honest because while I can sit here and give you book quote after book quote, the individual lines of the story need to be read as one big picture.

[Hodor the Articulate]

53 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

This admission is going to make discussion on this topic difficult, to be honest, because there are many pieces of information from Jon I in ASOS, all the way through Jon XIII in Dance.

The free folk also did things they did not want to do in that same scene, like supposedly accept the red god as their new god. Jon notices that many run off instead of doing that, and those that remained only faked the acceptance because they went back to worshiping the old gods. They were desperate and did what they did for survival in the moment.

Nope, that is not how they choose kings. Remember, Mance had to beat down like three guys to get to his position. Mance (indisguise) tetsed Jon in the battleyard and chose not to kill him. Everyone saw that and it meant something.

They do, and a re-read may refresh your memory on some of the extra points I am talking about. Jon also chose Val. He has already "stolen" Val and she is now his right hand woman. They will also follow her for that reason. Remember when Mance tells Jon to treat Dalla as you would any queen? That was back in ASOS, but it still rings true within the culture. Even Wun Wun knows this

I agree with all this (except the notion that Jon choose Val - he actually chose the NW over her & Winterfell). What I'm not getting is how all of that lead you to conclude that Val has any sort of political value to the Wildlings. You say that they will follow her because she is Jon's "Queen", but that means her power is derived from Jon; she has no power over the Wildlings by herself. So that brings us back to my original question: why does Jon need her to ally with, and ensure good behaviour from the Wildlings? He can achieve that by himself.

1 hour ago, The Fattest Leech said:

ALL of Westeros is about to change. There is no way that with the incoming invasion of dragons, lunatic pirates, and Others that things are going to stay the same. EVERY ONE is going to have to open their eyes to see what really matters. Humanity. That is one reason for the free folk to have one of their own as a leader. With all the discmboobulation happening, they need a familair face (in the least) that they know, they chose, the followed, and they trust. They chose Mance, and Mance chose Dalla, and one is dead and the other possibly soon, so that leaves the next best thing... Val.

This contradicts what you said further up, about how Wildlings choose Kings. They didn't follow Dalla, and they're not following Val.

If they did want familiar face, Val isn't the only notable Wildling. There's Tormund and the other guys who are friendly with Jon, for example. I'm sure hanging around Jon a lot would get you noticed. Besides, there aren't that many Wildings left. They probably all know each other.

1 hour ago, The Fattest Leech said:

And remember,we already have seen the free folk assimilate in to the schedule and norms at Castle Black without any issue... well, the only issue is coming from the ones who were taught that they are the bad guys because, as LC Mormont and Jon both say in different occasions, they are part of the realms of men and need protecting all the same. And we al love us some LC Mormont, right? And he wasn't and "oathbreaker", right?

Is this not the same situation as the kneeling? I get the sense that this obedience might only be temporary, and a means of survival. Who knows if they'll truly assimilate once they get off the Wall? And if they have already truly assimilated, then there's no need for Jon to control them, let alone Val.

1 hour ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Also, whoever gets Winterfell gets Val. She is apparently of some high value in a southroners eyes if Val is seated in the stronghold of the north without even a "husband" yet. Stannis and/or Selyse keep changing who they think will marry Val, but what never changes is Val is always at Winterfell in the deal first.

Yes, because they think Val has power over the Wildings, which is, as Jon notes, baloney. The Wildlings don't consider Val as anything but Dalla's sister, and her marriage to whomever won't guarantee their allegiance or co-operation.

1 hour ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Yes, that is the point I have made, or more importantly the books have made, time and time again with many different aspects of understanding. Sam tells Jon that history is skewed, that we don't know what really is truth or not. Ygritte tells Jon (us) that the free folk know things the kneelers have forgotten. Part of that understanding will have to come from the idiots like Marsh, maesters, Old Nan, etc to STOP telling false stories about how the wildlings are monsters who eat babies and drink blood and blah de blah de blah. That will have to happen in addition to the free folk doing their share of integration.

<snip'd for space>

I may not remember every little detail, but I know the general gist of how things went, and I don't recall ever encountering, in any of my re-reads, an indication that Val is or will become the next King Beyond the Wall, or that a union between her and Jon would symbolize unity between the Wildlings and the rest of Westeros. If anything, the thing that will bind the two groups is Jon, himself. He already has started, sort of, by bringing them over the Wall.

A political marriage between a Wildling and a "kneeler", and full assimilation of the Wildlings into Westeros society, is not proper unity and equality. It is the Wildlings losing their identity and accepting and adopting Westerosi customs over their own. That people won't spread anti-Wildling propaganda means very little, because it still isn't "true" Wildlings, with all their culture and ideologies, that they're accepting into their society. Westeros doesn't have to change at all.

Compare this to Dorne and Rhoyne, a case of proper unity and equality. Nymeria's people settled into Dorne, adopting much of the Westerosi's way of life, but Dorne was also, in turn, influenced by Rhoynar culture. (And yes, I know Nym married into Dorne, but it's not comparable to Wildlings/Winterfell because Rhoyne was a monarchy, so political marriages were presumably already part of their culture).

[The Fattest Leech]

16 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I agree with all this (except the notion that Jon choose Val - he actually chose the NW over her & Winterfell). What I'm not getting is how all of that lead you to conclude that Val has any sort of political value to the Wildlings. You say that they will follow her because she is Jon's "Queen", but that means her power is derived from Jon; she has no power over the Wildlings by herself. So that brings us back to my original question: why does Jon need her to ally with, and ensure good behaviour from the Wildlings? He can achieve that by himself.

Ok, yeah, you need a reread, my friend Jon says he can't chose Winterfell for a few reasons like it belongs to another sibling, he won't accept it because it means he would be required to burn the Weirwood tree and he won't do that and defy the old gods, and he says he wants it, and that he wants Val, but he can't chose them because he has to make the "bastards choice" and stick with his NW position.

If you have not done so already, please read GRRM's older stories that are pretty much preludes to this arc in ASOIAF. Start with NIghtflyers, then The Glass Flower, then And Seven Times Never Kill Man, then House of the Worm, and then go back and reread Nightflyers. If anyone think the idea of Val and Jon is new to George, or not planned from the beginning, they need to read these stories.

Can I assume you have read my Nymeria thread? It is full of book info. If you don't like what I have to say, then try this short read that was just shared with me a day or two ago. It is from a forum poster that is apparently not very active anymore. The two write ups are similar, but there is plenty of info one has that the other doesn't (different reading styles).

If I remember correctly, you think Jon's destiny is to end up with Daenerys? If that is so, and you are stuck on that, then I can't see what discussion otherwise is going to achieve.

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

Val is my favorite female and I would love to see her and Jon wed , I don't think so .

[Hodor the Articulate]

1 hour ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Ok, yeah, you need a reread, my friend Jon says he can't chose Winterfell for a few reasons like it belongs to another sibling, he won't accept it because it means he would be required to burn the Weirwood tree and he won't do that and defy the old gods, and he says he wants it, and that he wants Val, but he can't chose them because he has to make the "bastards choice" and stick with his NW position.

That's what I said, he chose the NW over Val. He chose duty over base desires (becoming lord of Winterfell, having a trophy wife, etc). Of course, he later chooses love again (Arya), and gets stabbed for it.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're a puzzle. Every conversation I've had with you, on this thread, we seem to be in agreement on a lot of things, but somehow end up at opposite conclusions.

2 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Can I assume you have read my Nymeria thread? It is full of book info. If you don't like what I have to say, then try this short read that was just shared with me a day or two ago. It is from a forum poster that is apparently not very active anymore. The two write ups are similar, but there is plenty of info one has that the other doesn't (different reading styles).

I've seen it, yes. I'm not convinced Val has has anything to do with Nym, nor do I think her role in the series is as that. As I see it, Nymeria's parallels are two of our main characters, Jon and Dany. I have a gut feeling Arya ties into it as well, but I'm not sure how, yet. Something to do with the pack of wolves Nymeria (the dire wolf) is leading.

1 hour ago, The Fattest Leech said:

If I remember correctly, you think Jon's destiny is to end up with Daenerys? If that is so, and you are stuck on that, then I can't see what discussion otherwise is going to achieve.

No, I think Dany and Jon are destined for grand heroic deaths (although, Jon dying again might be...er, overkill, so maybe he lives). Maybe they'll get together before that, maybe they won't - I don't really have an opinion on them, and I'm not against either paths.

I'm just not feeling Val as the endgame ship, in the same way that I don't feel Daario is the ultimate love in Dany's storyline. Both characters were important in ADWD, representing the same thing to Dany and Jon - temptation from duty. They're what Dany and Jon really want at that time, but are forced to give up for duty (ho ho! There's that love vs duty theme popping up again). Out of that context, though, Daario and Val seem rather useless, thematically. They'd just be pretty faces (well, pretty in GRRM's mind, anyway), serving as nothing but love interests.

Perhaps I'll feel differently if GRRM fleshes out Val's character in the next book. Right now, she's just this empty canvas that you can project pretty much whatever personality or motivation onto as you please. She's basically the love interest in every male-lead action film - the reason, I suspect, it's so easy to see her with our hero, Jon.

[kissdbyfire]

On 15/04/2017 at 11:24 PM, Good Guy Garlan said:

He should. That's what I'd do. I predict Jon will return very much changed from the dead, and I think he'll finally realize, among other things, that oaths and honor aren't worth jackshit. 

He bled and fought for the Watch. He lost his first love for the Watch. He turned his back on his family for the Watch. He gave up his shot at getting his home back for the Watch. 

And what was his reward? To die for the Watch. 

Fuck that. He should take everything Stannis offered him before, with fire and blood. He and Val should make hot wildling love in the hot springs of Winterfell, the Watch be damned.

I think he already has. And the moment it happens is when he reads the PL:

 

“I won’t say you’re wrong. What do you mean to do, crow?”
Jon flexed the fingers of his sword hand. The Night’s Watch takes no part. He closed his fist and opened it again. What you propose is nothing less than treason. He thought of Robb, with snowflakes melting in his hair. Kill the boy and let the man be born. He thought of Bran, clambering up a tower wall, agile as a monkey. Of Rickon’s breathless laughter. Of Sansa, brushing out Lady’s coat and singing to herself. You know nothing, Jon Snow. He thought of Arya, her hair as tangled as a bird’s nest. I made him a warm cloak from the skins of the six whores who came with him to Winterfell … I want my bride back … I want my bride back … I want my bride back …
“I think we had best change the plan,” Jon Snow said.”

 

[The Fattest Leech]

19 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

 

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're a puzzle. Every conversation I've had with you, on this thread, we seem to be in agreement on a lot of things, but somehow end up at opposite conclusions.

 

No offense. It happens with lots of posters on most topics.

Besides, puzzles are always fun and interesting and tell the whole picture in the end