Jump to content

Bowen Marsh was right to remove Jon from office.


Barbrey Dustin

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Cersei knows that LC Jon is feeding and having deals with Stannis. You're just cherry picking.

I hardly think it is a secret that the NW under Jon is hosting Stannis.  Nor is it the sort of thing that can be legitimately be kept from the Crown, in any event.  While the Crown may be Jon's enemy, it is not the NW's enemy.   iirc, Jon even admitted to hosting Stannis in his "paper shield" he sent to Tommen 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Denam_Pavel said:

Showing relief that someone isn't about to die isn't oath breaking. Nor is opting against eating meals with the boss.

Straw man or changing the goal posts. We were discussing evidence of conspiracy, not oath breaking. Showing relief that Slynt's not going to die (and the sole one to do so) so inconveniently against you trying to argue "see he was not eating with Slynt and Thorne the morning of Slynt's execton" is a sign that him not eating with Slynt that morning is not evidnece that Marsh was distancing himself to Slynt (only in appearance), but is actually more pro-Slynt than Thorne is.

Sharing food and drinks at a private meeting with a "host" (and in his rooms or office, Jon is the host) is the Westerosi custom of having peaceful negotiations, whether informal or formal. It's like someone waving a white handkerchief or white flag and meeting in no-man's land with the enemy. To opt not to eat or drink is a sign of meaning ill. This actually has been established by Jon himself when he does not eat any of Craster's food, but instead eats whatever the NW brought along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Nevets said:

I hardly think it is a secret that the NW under Jon is hosting Stannis.  Nor is it the sort of thing that can be legitimately be kept from the Crown, in any event.  While the Crown may be Jon's enemy, it is not the NW's enemy.   iirc, Jon even admitted to hosting Stannis in his "paper shield" he sent to Tommen 

The NW is not a subject to the Iron Throne. They are not required to inform the IT of anything. All communication (incoming and outgoing) is controlled by the LC, as already established by Jeor and whatever news comes from WF. And nobody but the NW, wildlings and Stannis are at the Wall in the weeks before and the first months after Jon is LC.

The only reason that the IT even knows that Stannis is at the Wall, is because Slynt sent the IT a letter. Not because anybody else knows. Cersei for a while thinks Stannis just fled to Essos or something before she hears of the news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

The NW is not a subject to the Iron Throne. They are not required to inform the IT of anything. All communication (incoming and outgoing) is controlled by the LC, as already established by Jeor and whatever news comes from WF. And nobody but the NW, wildlings and Stannis are at the Wall in the weeks before and the first months after Jon is LC.

The only reason that the IT even knows that Stannis is at the Wall, is because Slynt sent the IT a letter. Not because anybody else knows. Cersei for a while thinks Stannis just fled to Essos or something before she hears of the news.

When Stannis showed up, there was no LC.  In fact, Slynt was, for practical intents and purposes, the de facto LC, at the time, from what I remember.  He certainly acted like it.  So his sending a message about Stannis wouldn't have been illegal.

While the NW is not subject to the Crown, it is dependent on Westeros for personnel, supplies, and enforcement of the edict against desertion, among other things.  It is also supposed to be studiously neutral in disputes involving the Seven Kingdoms.  Hosting a claimant to the throne without even telling anybody about it is hardly being neutral

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Straw man or changing the goal posts. We were discussing evidence of conspiracy, not oath breaking. Showing relief that Slynt's not going to die (and the sole one to do so) so inconveniently against you trying to argue "see he was not eating with Slynt and Thorne the morning of Slynt's execton" is a sign that him not eating with Slynt that morning is not evidnece that Marsh was distancing himself to Slynt (only in appearance), but is actually more pro-Slynt than Thorne is.

Sharing food and drinks at a private meeting with a "host" (and in his rooms or office, Jon is the host) is the Westerosi custom of having peaceful negotiations, whether informal or formal. It's like someone waving a white handkerchief or white flag and meeting in no-man's land with the enemy. To opt not to eat or drink is a sign of meaning ill. This actually has been established by Jon himself when he does not eat any of Craster's food, but instead eats whatever the NW brought along.

It's not evidence of conspiracy to oathbreak or mutiny, or anything either. Jon didn't refuse to eat Craster's food as a official declaration of war. It was disapproval of him in general, same with the NWs. I admit that Marsh and several other brother disapproved of Jon's decisions. Jon already felt he'd be a hypocrite for eating Craster's meat without having any set plans to murder him. Same benefit of doubt should be extended to others.

 

Quote

“Until now,” said Cersei. “The bastard boy has written us to avow that the Night’s Watch takes no side, but his actions give the lie to his words. He has given Stannis food and shelter, yet has the insolence to plead with us for arms and men.”

This is not evidence of even Slynt doing anything negative towards Jon either before or after he becomes LC. Cersei is just taking Jon's own letter and weighing it against the mere fact of Stannis' presence at the Wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nevets said:

Actually, with her early killings, she felt some guilt and shame, such that she wouldn't tell either Edric Dayne or Harwin about them, Harwin because it would be too much like telling her father.  That's not feeling nothing.  Even in Braavos, she hasn't killed anybody she knows to be an innocent (she had to be pressured to kill Insurance Man), and she has yet to torture or torment anybody.  (WOW spoiler).

That is only the case for her first murders. She no longer has such scruples with Dareon or Raff. And not even with the insurance guy. She told herself that he was a bad guy deserving of death until she believed it. That's what assassins do be able to live with themselves.

I agree that Arya has not yet any sadistic tendencies but she is still pre-adolescent. Her traumas and experiences with violence and death will shape not only her world view but also her sexuality. If Ramsay had gotten a hold of her he could have molded her like he did with Little Walder. That boy was also not born evil, after all.

It is also true that she doesn't enjoy torturing people as of yet but that's not part of her training. But her kills - especially the Tickler and Raff - are actually very frightening. And I assume Dareon was much worse. That's why we never got to see the details of that. I'm not saying she was particularly cruel there, but as cold-hearted and efficient as a true professional killer. That's just sickening in an 11-year-old girl. There is no chance that she is ever going to become *normal* again. Not in this world.

4 hours ago, Nevets said:

I think that was essentially Jon's plan.  To send her to Braavos quietly without anybody really being the wiser.  Obviously,it didn't quite work out that way.  I also think that when/if FArya arrives at the Wall, they will do something similar.  Get her out of the way.  Especially if she has an escort, sending her away is preferable to a fight.

Could very well be that this was the plan. But we don't know. He didn't seem to have thought all that much about this whole thing.

There is a chance that Jeyne will accompany Massey and Tycho Nestoris to Braavos, and I assume they will take Selyse, Axell, and Shireen as well. Regardless whether they will know that Stannis has won or not Selyse is going to want to ensure the safety of her daughter, not to mention to ensure that the loans Stannis got from the Iron Bank will actually be used to hire sellswords to fight for Stannis (or now for Shireen should Stannis be truly dead).

4 hours ago, Nevets said:

I am not entirely convinced that his body is dead.  Certainly it is likely to cause serious injury, but given the type of weapon used (daggers) and the likelihood that Jon was wearing protective clothing like leather, and think clothing for the cold, I think survival is not out of the question.  If, however, he warged into Ghost, it might be some time before he "returns", so to say.  Or he could be resurrect like Beric, but still unconscious because of his injuries.  We'll just have to wait and see. 

Jon is bleeding out in the chapter. That's why he loses consciousness when he does. And there is no reason to believe the fourth dagger he didn't feel was the last. No reason at all. And aside from all that - both the stomach and the wound between the shoulder blades have the potential of being fatal. If his intestinal tract is damaged he'll die a slow and painful death but he most certainly will die.

And the whole point of the Prologue was to introduce us to the concept of the second life of a skinchanger. Varamyr died to begin his second life and so will Jon. That's the point of this entire plot point.

More importantly, you really want him to become a fire zombie the way I described him than have Melisandre magically heal him the Victarion way (and that's the only type of magical healing we know that could deal with potentially lethal wounds). Considering the amount of lethal and potentially lethal wounds he has this kind of treatment would most likely transform him into a burning and smoking monstrosity, a creature that could not hope to ever enjoy the companionship of normal people without provoking their fear or disgust. It will be nothing compared to how people reacted to noseless Tyrion or Sandor's burned face. 

But a man like Beric still looked reasonably well aside from his wounds (and Jon wasn't hanged). That should enable Jon to live a somewhat 'normal life' until the Others are defeated. What happens then remains to be seen but I doubt he is going to want to live on. Westeros deserves better than a zombie king, and he himself deserves a true and clean death after he has succeeded in his mission.

As unpleasant as it sounds, but George actually killing Jon makes it very, very likely that he is not going to survive the series (and this is the main reason why I don't like this whole plot of Jon being killed). Both Gandalf and Jesus returned from the dead only for a very short time before they went into the West/heaven. Jon is likely to do that, too. Assuming her survives the last battle. Which is an and of itself rather unlikely. Jon is the kind of guy who would sacrifice himself to save others. Even more so if he realizes that he should be alive or that his life has become a twisted joke.

Perhaps he can father a child before he goes but even that might be problematic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Nevets said:

While the NW is not subject to the Crown, it is dependent on Westeros for personnel, supplies, and enforcement of the edict against desertion, among other things.  It is also supposed to be studiously neutral in disputes involving the Seven Kingdoms.  Hosting a claimant to the throne without even telling anybody about it is hardly being neutral

If you had mentioned Jon giving tactical advice to Stannis as an example of him not being neutral that would have made sense. But to say that in hosting Stannis and his men, Jon was not being nuetral makes absolutely no sense. Like Jon had any other option. Stannis saved the NW and then stationed his entire army in Castle Black. Tell me what is Jon supposed to do? How is he supposed to kick out the guy (who also claims to be king) with the superior numbers and a seasoned army who also happened to save Jon and his men's lives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Night's Watch is subject to the Iron Throne, just as it was subject to the kings of the Seven and the Hundred Kingdoms before the Conquest. They bow and kneel before the king and queen, and they set special towers aside for their use should they ever care to visit this part of their vast kingdom, they beg and ask them for help, they fear their power knowing fully well that they can destroy them with so much as a word or a gesture.

There are so many implicit and explicit instances in the books that stress this fact that this isn't even worth discussing.

This is not at odds with them having certain privileges - the Faith once also had certain privileges, until the Crown took it from them. The Night's Watch is not that different from any other lord in the sense that they can take care of their own people and elect their own lord commander. But you can be subject to another authority and still be able to elect the commander of your own order. And that's what the Watch does. The Faith Militant most likely also elected its own commanders, just as the Most Devout still choose the High Septon. But that doesn't mean the High Septon isn't subject to the Iron Throne, does it?

39 minutes ago, teej6 said:

If you had mentioned Jon giving tactical advice to Stannis as an example of him not being neutral that would have made sense. But to say that in hosting Stannis and his men, Jon was not being nuetral makes absolutely no sense. Like Jon had any other option. Stannis saved the NW and then stationed his entire army in Castle Black. Tell me what is Jon supposed to do? How is he supposed to kick out the guy (who also claims to be king) with the superior numbers and a seasoned army who also happened to save Jon and his men's lives?

One could have been of the opinion that he could have demanded Stannis to leave Castle Black, forcing him to take what he wanted with force of arms. That is what Cersei and Tywin would expected of the Watch, no doubt. Jon is not obligated to extend guest right to Stannis. If Stannis thinks it was his duty as would-be king to come to the defense of the Wall, fine, but it is not the duty of the Watch to thank him for that. Or so one could argue.

Cersei doubtless would also interpret that not using force to send Stannis on his way was treason. It is not up to you or me to tell her she can't. She is the Queen Regent at this point in time.

And this is not about Jon, it is about the entire Watch. They all allowed Stannis to stay while there was yet no Lord Commander elected. Tommen's government might hold them all responsible for aiding and abetting a traitor, not just the guy they eventually elected.

In light of that it makes a lot of sense for any sane man at the Wall to try to get into the good graces of both Cersei and Tywin to ensure that the Watch has a future. It is dependent on the Seven Kingdoms to survive the coming winter, even more so if the Others attack. But also if there is just going to be a mundane six-year-winter.

Jon technically understands that, too. But he doesn't care emotionally. He wants to see the Lannisters and Boltons destroyed. He doesn't want to work with them. And while that is understandable it is still wrong. And very much treason by the standards of the Watch.

If any other Lord Commander had 'the moral compass' of Jon Snow the Watch hadn't survived for a generation, let alone for thousands of years. There would have been Lord Commanders with much more military power and much stronger grievances that Jon could hope to understand. And they kept the vows and served the common good as best they could, unlike him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

In light of that it makes a lot of sense for any sane man at the Wall to try to get into the good graces of both Cersei and Tywin to ensure that the Watch has a future. 

...And they kept the vows and served the common good as best they could, unlike him.

The same Cersei and Tywin who didn't give a flying fuck about the Watch.  Yes, Jon should try and get into their good graces and hope and pray that the next time he sends a letter for help Cersei will care. 

And your last statement just shows how much you'll distort the author's intent to suit your narrative. If Jon isn't serving and fighting for the common good in this story, I don't know who is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

That's why we never got to see the details of that. I'm not saying she was particularly cruel there, but as cold-hearted and efficient as a true professional killer. That's just sickening in an 11-year-old girl. There is no chance that she is ever going to become *normal* again. Not in this world.

 

   I do hope you are right about her. He has become cold and trained assassins usually are so. In the Old Testament times, in Medieval times and in GRRM's ASOIAF people have the right to vengeance. The Rat Cook story confirms that; the Cook had the right to kill the offender's son, cook him and give it to his father to eat it. He, however, had no right to do so breaking the Guest's Right!

   Therefore having Robb Stark and his men betrayed and killed, which by itself give any Stark the right of retribution, but much more so because it was done under Guest's Right, under Lord Frey's roof, making it a crime, an abomination so terrible in the sight of men and 'gods' like they like to say, that even indirectly being connected to it makes it disgusting, unhonorable and a sin (in the book); even the High Septon asked Cersei Lannister if she or her family had anything to do with it and she denies (lies) it.

    Any Stark alive has then right to revenge himself, killing any person that concocted it together and/or took part in the killings themselves. And considering how Sansa is and considering how young Rickon is and considering how magical and knowledgeable and righteous Brandon might become and considering how honorable and preoccupated with the Others Jon Snow is if Lady Stoneheart does not do her job I am happy to know that Arya of House Stark will finish the job. Alleluia for that. :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lord Varys

according to the WB the Watch is maintained and supported by the northerners, not the IT. I'll add that this fits perfectly w/ what we've seen, whereas the IT clearly doesn't give a shit,

I'll also argue that if the NW is "subject to the Iron Throne" as you put it, why then Cersei/the crown felt the need to infiltrate agents there and try to influence things, going as far as planning on killing its LC? If the Watch is under the IT's jurisdiction, why not just disband it and be done w/ it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, teej6 said:

The same Cersei and Tywin who didn't give a flying fuck about the Watch.  Yes, Jon should try and get into their good graces and hope and pray that the next time he sends a letter for help Cersei will care.

The Watch serves, it does not rule. Servants have to suck up to their masters, they cannot presume to rule. That is why Jeor Mormont tries to convince King Robert and King Joffrey wants going on, he does not presume to boss them around.

Jon can do little else. But he doesn't even do that. He chooses sides and supports the cause of a doomed pretender against the King on the Iron Throne. Stannis may have helped the Watch but he cannot hope to prevail against the Others. Not with the few men he has.

Things begin to look brighter for Stannis throughout his campaign, in no small part thanks to Jon's support, but the whole thing is still going to be decided on the battlefield. If the Pink Letter were true - which it isn't, but it very well could have been - then Jon and the Watch are finished. But Stannis is not going to win the Iron Throne at Winterfell, just the North. And the North is not enough to defeat the Others.

I doubt even those 20,000 sellswords Stannis wants to hire will be enough. They certainly could man the Wall properly, but I very much doubt they will be able to hold it.

5 minutes ago, teej6 said:

And your last statement just shows how much you'll distort the author's intent to suit your narrative. If Jon isn't finding for the common good in this story, I don't know who is. 

Good intentions aren't worth anything when you don't have the means to actually do something to reach your goals. Jon wants to defend the realms of men (at least before he declared war on them) but he lacks the men to properly fight that war. That means he will lose and die, leading all the men who follow him to their doom unless some miracle saves him. But he cannot count on any such miracles. Instead, he does his best to antagonize the men who could have been his allies in the wars to come. His duty as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch would have been to ensure the support of men who actually can fight. Men who are trained and disciplined. Men only the lords and kings of the Seven Kingdoms can give to him.

Saving the wildlings is a nice thing, but it won't help him with his war. The wildlings are already defeated, they have fled their lands because they fear the Others. They could not stand against Stannis, and they certainly won't stand against an army of wights.

The way the Night's Watch fights for the common good of humanity is to ignore their own petty emotions, including the fates of the people they actually should love, because the mission to save humanity itself is more important than your family or your friends. And Jon is simply not up to that. Any other Lord Commander of the Night's Watch we know and who didn't die a traitor's death knew that and lived up to that standard. Jon could not.

3 minutes ago, HallowedMarcus said:

I do hope you are right about her. He has become cold and trained assassins usually are so. In the Old Testament times, in Medieval times and in GRRM's ASOIAF people have the right to vengeance. The Rat Cook story confirms that; the Cook had the right to kill the offender's son, cook him and give it to his father to eat it. He, however, had no right to do so breaking the Guest's Right!

   Therefore having Robb Stark and his men betrayed and killed, which by itself give any Stark the right of retribution, but much more so because it was done under Guest's Right, under Lord Frey's roof, making it a crime, an abomination so terrible in the sight of men and 'gods' like they like to say, that even indirectly being connected to it makes it disgusting, unhonorable and a sin (in the book); even the High Septon asked Cersei Lannister if she or her family had anything to do with it and she denies (lies) it.

    Any Stark alive has then right to revenge himself, killing any person that concocted it together and/or took part in the killings themselves. And considering how Sansa is and considering how young Rickon is and considering how magical and knowledgeable and righteous Brandon might become and considering how honorable and preoccupated with the Others Jon Snow is if Lady Stoneheart does not do her job I am happy to know that Arya of House Stark will finish the job. Alleluia for that. :D 

I must say I don't really the idea of 11-year-old girl being a professional assassin. I like revenge stories very much, too, but if we have Arya doing that kind of thing she will never become *normal* again. Children going through the kind of thing she did usually grow into psychopaths. I just finished a book by a psychologist who studies both criminal and functioning psychopaths, and their childhoods usually are much more pleasant than Arya's, actually.

The idea that Arya could just continue to gut people only then to one day announce she is done with that trade, sheathing Needle, and living a normal life would be unrealistic. Her experiences twisted her, and she is not going to be able unlearn what she learned or forget what she suffered through. Her tale already is, in a sense, the saddest story in this series. Regardless whether she lives or dies, she has been ruined by the things she was forced to suffer.

I mean, I think nobody can *really* imagine that is going to marry and raise some children of her own, that she ends up living together with some husband and settling down somewhere in the countryside. That isn't Arya. The only career I could see for her is to continue the work she does, perhaps as the Mistress of Whisperers of whoever ends up on the Iron Throne in the end.

10 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

@Lord Varys

according to the WB the Watch is maintained and supported by the northerners, not the IT. I'll add that this fits perfectly w/ what we've seen, whereas the IT clearly doesn't give a shit.7

The Iron Throne and the lords all across the Realm send men to the Night's Watch. They are supporting it. The Iron Throne also allows those wandering crows to walk through the Realm and try to convince men to take the black. The king could forbid that, you know.

That most of the support in venison, meat, and other food stuff comes from the Lords of the North is hardly surprising. But it is nowhere stated that the Iron Throne and other lords (say, the Royces of Runestone) also support the Watch in that fashion.

10 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I'll also argue that if the NW is "subject to the Iron Throne" as you put it, why then Cersei/the crown felt the need to infiltrate agents there and try to influence things, going as far as planning on killing its LC? If the Watch is under the IT's jurisdiction, why not just disband it and be done w/ it? 

Because the Night's Watch does have the privilege to elect its own commander. But that privilege does not mean the Watch is independent or not subject to the Iron Throne.

Cersei would have a reason to get rid of Lord Commander Snow. But she certainly could go take the more convoluted and much longer road of some sort of a treason trial. But she could only conduct that once Stannis is actually defeated. The point of her infiltration scheme is simple. She thinks the Watch in general are Stannis' men and not to be trusted. They elected Jon, after all. So she has to get men she trusts to the Watch to set things right up there.

And Cersei is not wrong. Jon supports Stannis and is marshaling a wildling army to attack her allies in the North.

As to disbanding the Watch - in peace times this should have been very easy. Now it is more dangerous. But assume Robert or Aerys II had wanted to disband the Watch - they sure as hell could have done it with a single decree. Especially if they had offered all the criminals in the Watch an amnesty. You know, very few people actually want to be at the Wall.

And if such a king had handed over the Wall to the Starks they wouldn't have objected, either. It would have given them control of a lot of land, after all, as well as the means to protect their lands more efficiently from the wildlings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon Snow needed to accomplish three things (for a start) for the NW to have a chance to repel an invasion by the Others and protect the realms of men.

1. Gather able bodies to fight, which he did, by forging an alliance with the Free Folk, and thus robbing the Others of thousands of wights.

2. Find a way to feed that army, which he did, by negotiating a loan agreement with the Iron Bank.

3. Depose the Boltons, who helped destabilize the north, the only part of seven kingdoms that care for the well-being of the NW, which he was working on by utilizing his newly acquired wildling army who were not constrained by oaths of the NW.

Jon's arc in aDwD, from what I read, was of one of the few people that was fighting the right war, against supernatural ice creatures with a horde of zombies that seem intent on destroying all life.

His was a role of leadership, he was nation-building; forging alliances with former enemies to combat a common and more dangerous enemy, trying to make the NW more self sufficient by creating a working economy and resettling lands that had largely gone to waste.

His two great crimes seem to be pardoning Mance (who knows more about the Others than virtually everyone else in the series and is great at infiltration), and sending him to rescue his sister, a young teenage girl who was kidnapped and forced to marry against her will to solidify the north. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the execution itself.  Wundar's attack on the knight or the other way around was a fortuitous event that separated Jon from his wildling friends.  I want to first examine what might have happened to make Wundar go berserk.  The knight is an unknown to us and Stannis had some dense men at arms on his army.  Was the man dumb enough to attack a giant on his own?  No.  Furthermore, Wundar didn't act like he was defending himself.  He was acting like he had lost his self control.  In other words, he was acting like someone who was resisting a mind raper like Varamyr.  In this case the mind raper is Bran.  Bran, in his child's mind, tried to take a direct approach to prevent the execution of his brother by taking control of the biggest weapon he could at the wall.  Bran failed and this is another example of how messing with the future doesn't necessarily bring about the change that you want.  Like Cersei's attempts to stop the valonqar. 

Pressing on, I am convinced that the killing of Jon was a hasty decision in reaction to Jon's announcement.  The timing was off.  There are much better ways to kill an incompetent LC Snow.  Poisoning his stew would have been more efficient.  The point is they were not conspiring to kill Jon until AFTER he made the announcement to raid the Boltons.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Lame Lothar Frey said:

On the execution itself.  Wundar's attack on the knight or the other way around was a fortuitous event that separated Jon from his wildling friends.  I want to first examine what might have happened to make Wundar go berserk.  The knight is an unknown to us and Stannis had some dense men at arms on his army.  Was the man dumb enough to attack a giant on his own?  No.  Furthermore, Wundar didn't act like he was defending himself.  He was acting like he had lost his self control.  In other words, he was acting like someone who was resisting a mind raper like Varamyr.  In this case the mind raper is Bran.  Bran, in his child's mind, tried to take a direct approach to prevent the execution of his brother by taking control of the biggest weapon he could at the wall.  Bran failed and this is another example of how messing with the future doesn't necessarily bring about the change that you want.  Like Cersei's attempts to stop the valonqar. 

It's quite simple, actually. 

Selyse informs Jon that ser Patrek of King's Mountain is going to wed Val. Jon tells Selyse that's not how it works w/ the free folk. 

“Sers.” Jon inclined his head to the knights in question. “May you find happiness with your betrothed.”
“Under the sea, men marry fishes.” Patchface did a little dance step, jingling his bells. “They do, they do, they do.”
Queen Selyse sniffed again. “Four marriages can be made as simply as three. It is past time that this woman Val was settled, Lord Snow. I have decided that she shall wed my good and leal knight, Ser Patrek of King’s Mountain.”
Has Val been told, Your Grace?” asked Jon. “Amongst the free folk, when a man desires a woman, he steals her, and thus proves his strength, his cunning, and his courage. The suitor risks a savage beating if he is caught by the woman’s kin, and worse than that if she herself finds him unworthy.”
“A savage custom,” Axell Florent said.
Ser Patrek only chuckled. “No man has ever had cause to question my courage. No woman ever will."

Later, the brilliant ser Patrek decides to steal Val, who is being protected by Wun Wun. And as a half-blind bog dwelling alligator could see, ser Patrek itries to get past Wun Wun, but that doesn't work too well for him. And now ser Patrek is all over the walls and floor. I think that wedding ain't gonna happen. 

Quote

Pressing on, I am convinced that the killing of Jon was a hasty decision in reaction to Jon's announcement.  The timing was off.  There are much better ways to kill an incompetent LC Snow.  Poisoning his stew would have been more efficient.  The point is they were not conspiring to kill Jon until AFTER he made the announcement to raid the Boltons.

 

No, they were conspiring well before that. The PL and Jon's announcement in the Shieldhall only force the conspirators to improvise and carry out their plans differently. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Denam_Pavel said:

It's not evidence of conspiracy to oathbreak or mutiny, or anything either. Jon didn't refuse to eat Craster's food as a official declaration of war. It was disapproval of him in general, same with the NWs.

You're unfortunately wrong. Jon doesn't eat Craster's food, because Jon does not want to be bound to guest right at Craster's. If Jon doesn't eat Craster's food, he's not in breech with the gods if he were in a situation where he might have to harm Craster. It has nothing to do with showing his disapproval of Craster, since Craster is snoring in the loft upstairs during breakfast.

And by analogy that's why Marsh doesn't drink or eat anything of Jon's: if he kills or attacks Jon, he at least won't breach guest right and invite the wrath of the gods. Of course, that won't stop anybody else from killing Marsh in retaliation though. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I agree that Arya has not yet any sadistic tendencies but she is still pre-adolescent. Her traumas and experiences with violence and death will shape not only her world view but also her sexuality. If Ramsay had gotten a hold of her he could have molded her like he did with Little Walder. That boy was also not born evil, after all.

Little Walder was bad news at Winterfell before Ramsay ever appeared.  As Osha told Bran, "he's aptly named.  Big on the outside, little inside, and mean to the bones."  Ramsay was merely working with what was already there

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea that Arya could just continue to gut people only then to one day announce she is done with that trade, sheathing Needle, and living a normal life would be unrealistic. Her experiences twisted her, and she is not going to be able unlearn what she learned or forget what she suffered through. Her tale already is, in a sense, the saddest story in this series. Regardless whether she lives or dies, she has been ruined by the things she was forced to suffer.

While Arya's experiences and actions trouble me, I don't think she is past the point of no return, yet.  She is getting close, though.  However, I think the actions of the preview chapter are going to cause trouble with the FM, and what moral compass she has remaining from her upbringing as a Stark and Tully will keep her from going off the deep end.  And meeting Jeyne Poole, which I expect to happen, could have unexpected effects.  Of course, I could be wrong.  Call me an optimist, but I don't think GRRM has gotten her this far to simply have her become totally lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside:

Radio Westeros has a great theory that Jeyne will go to Braavos and ask for the gift of death as the House of the Undying -- seeing as how she is super depressed and her life is a complete ruin. This is where Arya will step in, and acquire her face. Then Arya will become fArya. The ultimate irony! 

This may allow her to reconnect with her sense of self, and if she is lucky, enough of her innocence not to end up a hollow psychopath. Here's hoping. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Nevets said:

While Arya's experiences and actions trouble me, I don't think she is past the point of no return, yet.  She is getting close, though.  However, I think the actions of the preview chapter are going to cause trouble with the FM, and what moral compass she has remaining from her upbringing as a Stark and Tully will keep her from going off the deep end.  And meeting Jeyne Poole, which I expect to happen, could have unexpected effects.  Of course, I could be wrong.  Call me an optimist, but I don't think GRRM has gotten her this far to simply have her become totally lost.

Arya is past the point of coming back to decency. 

Spoiler

Read the sample chapters from the next book. 

The girl is not only lost but she is an abomination just like Stoneheart.  Her sickness even infect her direwolf and cause it to behave like it does.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...