Bowen Marsh was right to remove Jon from office.

[sweetsunray]

19 minutes ago, Denam_Pavel said:

Jon created both threats.

Jon has fuck all to do with Mance becoming King Beyond the Wall and uniting the wildlings into an army. Jon was a boy playing in the yard of WF when that went all down. And he has fuck all to do with putting the Boltons in charge and whether the Boltons have a Northern army at all is very debatable. Not even Roose Bolton believes the Northerners in WF are his allies. Hell, he doesn't even trust he can hold on to the Dustins. There are no Boltons with a Northern army. There's just the Boltons and whatever little support they have left, if at all.

You're using a paper army as an argument for Jon to bend over backwards and give in to demands he cannot even meet. (like Dany giving in to demands she knows to be wrong over a carnival army, while rejecting offers from men willing to come over to her side - an army that can smashed with a huff and a puff in one sortie)

19 minutes ago, Denam_Pavel said:

The analogy you came up with is indeed wrong. Chett and Lark DID conspire and then subsequently kill Mormont for those controversial decisions.

The analogy is dead on right. Jon overhears Chett conspiring. Jon overhears Marsh conspiring. And both men have seen wights, know about the Others.

Just because it's a different setting, a different LC, and different conspiritors and a different result, does not make it any less of a conspiracy. BTW while Chett and Lark conspired they weren't the one who killed Mormont. Chett was about to kill Sam at the Fist when the wights attacked, and both Chett and Lark were killed and wighted. Jeor is eventually killed at Craster's by the men that Chett had approached and gathered for his conpiracy at the Fist.

The difference is that you don't blame Jeor Mormont for Chett conspiring, but you blame Jon and don't want to acknowledge it's a conspiracy. 

[Denam_Pavel]

3 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I see you didn't address any of the points I made in my previous reply to you. But ok, I'll play.

I have to say this is an enormous reply for something you feel was in no way adressed at you. It seems to me you feel it at least responds to some of your points. It is intended as such.

As for the rest.

Yes. We would have had to find out how things go with Mance's intentions if the assassination hadn't happened. I agree that time is linear. I however think sometimes actions should made anticipating certain responses rather then always waiting for things to be certainty. For instance, Jon forewent any further negotiating with Ramsay because he felt it was useless. He prejudged Ramsay's openmindedness having never met the man. Probably quite accurately.

You stated Jon was a steward and merely went on one ranging as a squire for his LC. I  pointed out that this single ranging makes up most his service as a member of the Night's Watch and his service as squire in fact did not last as long into his time as a brother of NW. So as far a stewards go, he is a massively atypical example and him being still a steward in name doesn't tell me he is filled with new found respect for the position that leaves with him an utterly objective assessment of Bowen Marsh as a man.

And no. I don't think I invented the wheel. I went into this argument assuming you read the same book I did  and things are selfevident, then you made a post about how I don't allude to any proof so I reference the text more, now you quote it verbatim to assure me that the things I say are indeed somewhat accurate, so  thank you for that.

I hope this was helpful to you after all, I didn't think it would be.

Quote

That's only after the Night's King "reign" at the Wall, as @sweetsunray already pointed out. 

That's speculation, since Jon hasn't left. And on top of that, what is the point you're trying to make here? 

This is getting very tiring... 

1. The Watch DID NOT EXECUTE MANCE/RATTLESHIRT, THAT WAS STANNIS.

2. MARSH DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT THE MANCE/RATTLESHIRT SWITCH. Presently at CB, Jon and Mel are the only ones who know. So, Marsh's decision to off Jon has fuck all to do with it. I will no longer address the same point. 

Of course the real purpose of the Wall has been forgotten over the last thousands of years. Otherwise there wouldn't be a story, would there? If everyone and their dogs were fully aware of  the threat of WWs and the army of the dead, they'd be preparing and the Wall wouldn't have 16 abandoned castles, nor would it have become a penal colony. 

And I'm not sure what you mean by "if what I am saying is true". If you are talking about the Wall being built over centuries and only reaching its current height over thousands of years, you don't have to take my word for it. Now, would George R. R. Martin's word be good enough for you? 

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/The_Wall/

Yes, the Wall was much smaller when first raised. It took hundreds of years to complete and thousands to reach it's present height.

 

When Jon reads the PL to Tormund, Tormund immediately says it might all be lies, everyone saw Mance burn and die. Jon never tells him about the glamour. All the wildlings and crows alike can know is that "Rattleshirt" went on some mission w/ a few separwives and/or that "Rattleshirt" and the spearwives were captured by the Boltons somehow, and that the Boltons think, for some reason, that they have Mance Rayder. But as I've said before, in their minds that can't be right - and it doesn't matter - because they all saw Mance burn.  

So, the argument that the assassination attempt has anything to do w/ Mance being alive is simply not true. End of story. This is another point I won't be addressing again.

Huh? It's not difficult at all. In fact, it's just the opposite. After all, we know without a shadow of a doubt that there were at least four black brothers actively involved in the stabbing. 

No, it's not bad for the Watch. But this is a matter of opinion, and we are both entitled to have one. 

Debatable. I think Marsh's attitudes have been pointing to this for quite some time. But there is no way of knowing for sure how it evolved or when exactly it started with the info we have at present. 

The Watch DID ultimately execute Rattleshirt. But yes, Stannis was initially the one carrying out the sentence. Normally the Warden of the North or Lord of Winterfell carries things out, in Janos Slynt's case, despite Stannis' presence, Jon improvised and killed him himself. The common element here is that oathbreaker lives get ended purposefully and the Watch delivers them to this end, albeit not alone.. And Mance is one of them. And Jon read a letter to the Watch that stated Marsh was alive, and on a mission on Jon's behalf. A letter that Jon took seriously enough to go to war over. Immediately. "How" is a question some people are surely asking. But not one they have the luxury of waiting on an answer for. Jon is leaving, now.

The part of your story I am less then confident is that Free Folk were always welcome to cross the Wall freely, such as it stood back then. The Wall being less substantial back then does not equate to the Brandon the Builder or the Night's Watch ever having been an ally or friend to the humans that decided to stay north of it. 

And thanks for letting me know I'm entitled to an opinion.

[teej6]

6 hours ago, Lord Freypie said:

... (the excellent essay on the Mereenese Blot, by a blogger GRRM himself praised for understanding him, being the best analysis I've ever read of his arc)  and the difficulties to be an efficient ruler, being an efficient ruler requiring some sense of compromise if you don't want to end with a civil war or being assassinated (or if you don't have some sense of compromise, you need to be ready to be completely ruthless ; anyway one way or the other you have to deal with the opposition, and instead Jon is just ignoring it).

IIRC, the Mereenese blot essay by Adam Feldman that GRRM agreed with was on Dany's struggles in Mereen and why it was necessary for GRRM to show it. Now I don't know if GRRM agrees with Feldman on his conclusions that the Shavepate might have tried to poison Dany or whether Dany has totally abandoned compromise and peace, what GRRM I believe agreed with was Feldman's reasoning for Dany's Mereneese arc.

ETA: I just saw that@The Fattest Leech and @sweetsunray beat me to the punch.

[Denam_Pavel]

40 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Jon has fuck all to do with Mance becoming King Beyond the Wall and uniting the wildlings into an army. Jon was a boy playing in the yard of WF when that went all down. And he has fuck all to do with putting the Boltons in charge and whether the Boltons have a Northern army at all is very debatable. Not even Roose Bolton believes the Northerners in WF are his allies. Hell, he doesn't even trust he can hold on to the Dustins. There are no Boltons with a Northern army. There's just the Boltons and whatever little support they have left, if at all.

Jon did not crown Mance King Beyond the Wall but is seemingly responsible for his presence south of the Wall and is definitely intending to try to be responsible for him having wildlings under his command again. And whatever the Watch ought to believe the political situation below is the Dreadfort by itself already commands thousands of bannermen and didn't have much ambition to  destroy the Watch until a letter was delivered seemingly in answer to actions undertaken by Jon.

Quote

You're using a paper army as an argument for Jon to bend over backwards and give in to demands he cannot even meet. (like Dany giving in to demands she knows to be wrong over a carnival army, while rejecting offers from men willing to come over to her side - an army that can smashed with a huff and a puff in one sortie)

Jon can send south the Lady Melisandre, Queen Selyse, Princess Shireen, Val, the baby Val is taking care off and inform Ramsay that his "Reek" hasn't been seen as of yet, that he does not need to review the heads decorating Winterfell's wall but thanks to the good lord for the offer. These sacrifices by themselves don't diminish the Watch's ability to do their job much. It's a scummy thing to do but Stannis and his men knew perfectly well that the Watch in to remain neutral and they were the ones asking them to comprimise that neutrality in their favor quite a bit first, which they were obliged in.  

Quote

The analogy is dead on right. Jon overhears Chett conspiring. Jon overhears Marsh conspiring. And both men have seen wights, know about the Others.

Just because it's a different setting, a different LC, and different conspiritors and a different result, does not make it any less of a conspiracy. BTW while Chett and Lark conspired they weren't the one who killed Mormont. Chett was about to kill Sam at the Fist when the wights attacked, and both Chett and Lark were killed and wighted. Jeor is eventually killed at Craster's by the men that Chett had approached and gathered for his conpiracy at the Fist.

The difference is that you don't blame Jeor Mormont for Chett conspiring, but you blame Jon and don't want to acknowledge it's a conspiracy. 

I'm not willing to take it as a given that these mutterings and whispers were a conspiracy because unlike with Chett and Lark, I haven't seen the result of these mutterings and whispers. I have seen the response to Jon's reading of the Pink Letter and announcing his intentions to arm the wildlings and lead them south to conquer the realms of men. And it need not be more then that. It probably is. But we don't know. We have not been in Marsh's head like we were in Chett's. All he's said on the matter is "for the Watch" with tears in his eyes.

[Ser_Jon_General]

16 minutes ago, Denam_Pavel said:

Jon can send south the Lady Melisandre, Queen Selyse, Princess Shireen, Val, the baby Val is taking care off and inform Ramsay that his "Reek" hasn't been seen as of yet, that he does not need to review the heads decorating Winterfell's wall but thanks to the good lord for the offer. These sacrifices by themselves don't diminish the Watch's ability to do their job much. It's a scummy thing to do but Stannis and his men knew perfectly well that the Watch in to remain neutral and they were the ones asking them to comprimise that neutrality in their favor quite a bit first, which they were obliged in. 

The hell he can.  Mel, Selyse and Shireen have their own guards, Val and the baby are protected by the presence of the rest of the Wildlings.  To try to forcibly send them to the Boltons would cause a bloodbath (with the Nights Watch being on the losing side).

Plus, handing them over would be an egregious breach of guest rights which, you might have noticed, is held in quite high regard in the North.

[kissdbyfire]

42 minutes ago, Denam_Pavel said:

I have to say this is an enormous reply for something you feel was in no way adressed at you. It seems to me you feel it at least responds to some of your points. It is intended as such.

You are misunderstanding what I am saying, as usual. Whether you are doing it deliberately or not, I don't know. And come to think of it, nor do I care anymore. I know your reply was addressed to me, since you quoted me and all. But they seldom address the issues. It goes like this: you make a wrong claim as if it were gospel; I refute it w/ support from the text. Then you reply to me again making a different, albeit equally erroneous, claim. 

My replies to you have been as enormous as I felt was necessary to try and explain why many of the claims you are making are just plain wrong, as the text shows us. 

Quote

As for the rest.

Yes. We would have had to find out how things go with Mance's intentions if the assassination hadn't happened.

I never said anything about "what if" scenarios. I care nothing for "what if" scenarios b/c then we'd be reading a completely different story.

Quote

I agree that time is linear.

And? What's this got to do w/ what we've been discussing?

 

Quote

I however think sometimes actions should made anticipating certain responses rather then always waiting for things to be certainty. For instance, Jon forewent any further negotiating with Ramsay because he felt it was useless. He prejudged Ramsay's openmindedness having never met the man. Probably quite accurately.

The point is, no one can anticipate consequences with any degree of certainty. Ever. All,one can do is try weigh in the many possible outcomes of any given situation, and make the best decision they possibly can within their limited knowledge. 

What further negotiations? For there to be "further" negotiation(s), previous negotiation(s) would have had to have happened, and there was/were none. Ramsay is a monster who writes to Jon saying he has flayed the spearwives, has a man he claims is Mance Rayder in a cage wearing a cloak of human skin, and that, if Jon doesn't roll over and does what he says, he'll march on CB and cut out Jon's heart and eat it. So, for you to say Jon was prejudging Ramsay is utterly ridiculous. 

 

Quote

You stated Jon was a steward and merely went on one ranging as a squire for his LC. I  pointed out that this single ranging makes up most his service as a member of the Night's Watch and his service as squire in fact did not last as long into his time as a brother of NW. So as far a stewards go, he is a massively atypical example and him being still a steward in name doesn't tell me he is filled with new found respect for the position that leaves with him an utterly objective assessment of Bowen Marsh as a man.

We are told the LC's steward is usually a young brother of good birth who will be groomed for command. Jon fits, as hundreds before him. After all, that's a tradition. 

Yes, Jon's experiences have probably been different from that of many, many young crows. The same is true for all the new recruits. 

Quote

And no. I don't think I invented the wheel. I went into this argument assuming you read the same book I did  and things are selfevident, then you made a post about how I don't allude to any proof so I reference the text more, now you quote it verbatim to assure me that the things I say are indeed somewhat accurate, so  thank you for that.

If your intention was to present what you said as textual proof, you did a very poor job. 

Quote

I hope this was helpful to you after all, I didn't think it would be.

One this we can agree, at least. Your reply was not helpful in any way, shape or form. 

Quote

The Watch DID ultimately execute Rattleshirt. But yes, Stannis was initially the one carrying out the sentence. Normally the Warden of the North or Lord of Winterfell carries things out, in Janos Slynt's case, despite Stannis' presence, Jon improvised and killed him himself. The common element here is that oathbreaker lives get ended purposefully and the Watch delivers them to this end, albeit not alone.. And Mance is one of them. And Jon read a letter to the Watch that stated Marsh was alive, and on a mission on Jon's behalf. A letter that Jon took seriously enough to go to war over. Immediately. "How" is a question some people are surely asking. But not one they have the luxury of waiting on an answer for. Jon is leaving, now.

Oh please! I'm now rolling my eyes so hard I can see my brain. Jon put Mance/Rattleshirt out of his misery. Stannis passed the sentence and had him executed. 

No, no, no, no. The Warden of the North carries out sentences elsewhere. At CB/NW that is the responsibility of the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. 

FFS, Marsh cannot know Mance is alive. Nor can the wildlings. They all saw "Mance Rayder" burn. 

Quote

The part of your story I am less then confident is that Free Folk were always welcome to cross the Wall freely, such as it stood back then. The Wall being less substantial back then does not equate to the Brandon the Builder or the Night's Watch ever having been an ally or friend to the humans that decided to stay north of it. 

I never ever said the wildlings were welcome south of the Wall. Stop twisting what I'm saying.

This started when you stated that Brandon the Builder crowned himself King in the North (wrong!) and that he built the Wall, that then became his border to the North, trapping the wildlings north of it. Then I explained to you that you were wrong about pretty much everything you had said, and that the latter point was completely absurd because of the amount of time it took for the Wall to be built and to reach 700ft. Then, you kept banging on and on about how I might be wrong about this, so I provided you w/ a quote from Martin, stating exactly what I had already said quite a few times. I am very, very done with this point.

Quote

And thanks for letting me know I'm entitled to an opinion.

You're welcome. But don't mistake being entitled to your opinion w/ being allowed to make things up. 

[teej6]

2 hours ago, Lame Lothar Frey said:

 

There is no excuse for Jon's conduct.  Jon was not  trying to "rescue" his sister.  He was trying to steal his sister from Ramsay to take her away from him forever.  That is not a "rescue".  That is stealing.  There is a distinction but it does not reflect positively on Jon.  To rescue Arya is to escort her back to Ramsay.  Would you at least agree that Jon had no intentions of giving Arya back to Ramsay?  That makes Jon guilty of starting a war with Ramsay.  Jon had no business and no right to take Arya from the Boltons.  

Jon broke all kinds of laws to even get to the point of stealing his sister.  He effectively gave Mance Rayder a free pass to get away with all of the awful crimes the turncloak was guilty of over the years when he had a responsibility to carry out justice and execute the man.  He ignored justice for the sake of his sister.  That's selfish and that's being a hypocrite.

Again, I don't know how somone can't see that there's a difference between saving a girl who has already escaped and actually kidnapping (or stealing or whatever you want to call it) a girl from under her husband's roof. So according to you if it was actually FArya and not Alys who reached the wall, Jon would have to return her to Ramsay as well or else that would entail stealing too. The bolded part of your post makes no sense whatsoever. So in your view, if a slave (and mind you Arya is not a slave and she is not Ramsay's property by the laws of Westeros but his wife) was running away from his/her master and Dany found this slave, she should then return this slave to his/her rightful master. Isn't this what you are saying? Or in the case of Sansa, the Vale lords should return her to KL if they find out who she is. I'm sure in Sansa's case there may be people at the Vale who might want to do that but then we as the readers won't be rooting for them, would we? We won't have much of a story by your reasoning. Everybody returns abused and tortured individuals who have fled their captors to said captors because that is the right thing to do. You see how your whole argument is BS. 

As for hanging Mance for an oathbreaker, as someone upthread said, Mance wasn't Jon's prisoner to do what he willed with the man, but Mance was Stannis' prisoner and by extension Mel's. 

[sweetsunray]

28 minutes ago, Denam_Pavel said:

Jon did not crown Mance King Beyond the Wall but is seemingly responsible for his presence south of the Wall and is definitely intending to try to be responsible for him having wildlings under his command again.

No, he is not responsible of Mance being south of the Wall. Stannis is when he let him through, brought him south of the wall.

And to everybody else, but Mel and Jon it "seems" Mance is dead.

The latter half of the sentence is such a convulated sentence that (my apologies, for I rarely criticise someone's ability to write a sentence) I can't make any sense even of what you're trying to say.

32 minutes ago, Denam_Pavel said:

Jon can send south the Lady Melisandre, Queen Selyse, Princess Shireen, Val, the baby Val is taking care off and inform Ramsay that his "Reek" hasn't been seen as of yet, that he does not need to review the heads decorating Winterfell's wall but thanks to the good lord for the offer.

As if the Queen's Men will let him! Jon: "Sorry, Queen's men, I'm taking your queen, her red priestess, Staniss's daughter, as captives and sending them with a NW escort to WF because this loonie who's known to flay people demands it of me. But if I don't do it, the loonie says he'll attack me and the NW." Then he turns around and says to the wildlings. "Sorry, this loonie also demands me to give him Val and Mance's son. Do be so kind not to make a fuss over that." Well we know what the result would be of that, no?

Jon CANNOT send these people to Ramsay. He has no authority over them nor the military power to enforce it.

39 minutes ago, Denam_Pavel said:

I haven't seen the result of these mutterings and whispers

You have seen the results of these muttering and whispers: people retracting their candidacy in order for Slynt to get voted in, Slynt's insubordination, Slynt having help to send CB ravens to KL and betray the NW to Cersei while neither has the authority to send communication without it being read by the LC first, Marsh refusing to drink and eat with Jon, and 4 people knifing Jon with one of them being Marsh who was part of the inital muttering and whispers.

[Lord Freypie]

1 minute ago, teej6 said:

Actually the Mereenese blot essay by Adam Feldman that GRRM agreed with was on Dany's struggles in Mereen and why it was necessary for GRRM to show it. It shows Dany's struggle and inherent nature not to compromise. She does so for peace but according to Feldman in the end of her chapter wrongly concludes that peace is not worth it. Feldman assumes that people in her inner circle such as the Shavepate and Daario do not want peace and is against her measures to compromise. She finally wrongly assumes a dragon plants no trees from her failed endeavor in Mereen. Now I don't know if GRRM agrees with Feldman on his conclusions that the Shavepate might have tried to poison Dany or whether Dany has totally abandoned compromise and peace what GRRM I believe agreed with was Feldman's reasoning for Dany's Mereneese arc.

Next time I'll mention his blog I'll make sure not to say that GRRM praised his good understanding as it seems mentionning this rare honor Adam Feldman had only derails the discussion, and just say it's for me the best analysis I've read of Jon's arc (as much as I think he wrote the best for Dany and one of the best on Dorne arc - I'm less convinced by his piece on Tyrion) .

Anyway Adam's general approach, which was remembering that GRRM quote  “The human heart in conflict with itself is the only thing worth writing about.” then analysing characters arcs as a serie of tests of PoV values (like family vs honor, peace vs justice, following my vows vs helping innocent, etc...) can't have been good when he speaks about Daenerys but bad when he speaks about Jon. And I find the way he describes Jon's main dilemna (fighting others wars vs helping innocents) is especially spot on as just every hard decision Jon has to make fails in this category (it allows to find a general trend between things like not killing the old man, opting for the Hardhome ranging, helping Alys, saving Arya, wanting to destroy the monster Ramsay, etc..). For Adam Jon doesn't fail because he's selfish but because he's heroic, and forgets what Mormont teached him at Craster's keep, that righting all the wrongs in the world wasn't the mission of the Nightwatch who had other wars to fight, to resume.

But most of my arguments (on the path of compromise) finally refered more to the Dany essay than the Jon's one,  as I was thinking about what Jon could have done to make the NightWatch old guard (also called the bigot party) more loyal. IMO he had many occasions where he could have offered them some reassurance, taking their advices in consideration on minor points (say accepting to cancel Leathers and Satin nominations, adopting a bit harder stance about wildling most violent leaders like the weeper - as he doesn't look likely to accept peace anyway-, etc...) and failed to.

[teej6]

5 minutes ago, Lord Freypie said:

Next time I'll mention his blog I'll make sure not to say that GRRM praised his good understanding as it seems mentionning this rare honor Adam Feldman had only derails the discussion, and just say it's for me the best analysis I've read of Jon's arc (as much as I think he wrote the best for Dany and one of the best on Dorne arc - I'm less convinced by his piece on Tyrion) .

Anyway Adam's general approach, which was remembering that GRRM quote  “The human heart in conflict with itself is the only thing worth writing about.” then analysing characters arcs as a serie of tests of PoV values (like family vs honor, peace vs justice, following my vows vs helping innocent, etc...) can't have been good when he speaks about Daenerys but bad when he speaks about Jon. And I find the way he describes Jon's main dilemna (fighting others wars vs helping innocents) is especially spot on as just every hard decision Jon has to make fails in this category (it allows to find a general trend between things like not killing the old man, opting for the Hardhome ranging, helping Alys, saving Arya, wanting to destroy the monster Ramsay, etc..). For Adam Jon doesn't fail because he's selfish but because he's heroic, and forgets what Mormont teached him at Craster's keep, that righting all the wrongs in the world wasn't the mission of the Nightwatch who had other wars to fight, to resume.

But most of my arguments (on the path of compromise) finally refered more to the Dany essay than the Jon's one,  as I was thinking about what Jon could have done to make the NightWatch old guard (also called the bigot party) more loyal. IMO he had many occasions where he could have offered them some reassurance, taking their advices in consideration on minor points (say accepting to cancel Leathers and Satin nominations, adopting a bit harder stance about wildling most violent leaders like the weeper - as he doesn't look likely to accept peace anyway-, etc...) and failed to.

No one argued that Jon's arc is not about GRRM's interest in showing the human heart in conflict with itself. What other posters and I noted was that you incorrectly stated that GRRM agreed with Feldman's views on his entire essays when in reality GRRM only commended Feldman on his understanding of why GRRM and we the readers had to plod through Dany's Meereen storyline. This was GRRM's response in a way to the many fans who hated the Meereen storyline. 

As to your argument that Jon could have compromised with Marsh and his sort, I doubt that would even be possible with the likes of Marsh who was so set it his ways. Jon went through the trouble of discussing his every decision with his commanders but at some point he began to realize and expect them to make the same arguments over and over again against his decisions. The only compromise that would suit Bowen Marsh was to keep the Wildlings out and let their women and children die. He even said as much. Now if Jon agreed to that he wouldn't be the hero GRRM intended him to be, would he? On the smaller disagreements like Leathers and Satin, I'd say that Jon was trying to be inclusive and egalitarian, something that should have appeased the rank and file and the Wildlings. He saw talent in Leathers and wanted to make use of it. Jon's mistake was not in that he did not compromise with Marsh but was in that he continued to trust in the loyalty of Marsh and his cronies. Jon was blind to the threat they posed and was hasty in sending some of his friends away and in distancing others, all to look neutral and fair. Jon was playing fair and noble amongst a group of people who were planning to mutiny. Jon saw this happen with Mormont but chose to turn a blind eye even when warned by Mel.

[sweetsunray]

5 minutes ago, Lord Freypie said:

and just say it's for me the best analysis I've read of Jon's arc (as much as I think he wrote the best for Dany and one of the best on Dorne arc - I'm less convinced by his piece on Tyrion) .

See, you point out yourself the blogger doesn't hit a homerun on every character's arc.

 

6 minutes ago, Lord Freypie said:

Anyway Adam's general approach, which was remembering that GRRM quote  “The human heart in conflict with itself is the only thing worth writing about.” then analysing characters arcs as a serie of tests of PoV values (like family vs honor, peace vs justice, following my vows vs helping innocent, etc...) can't have been good when he speaks about Daenerys but bad when he speaks about Jon.

Actually it can, because Adam's approach of Dany's arc leaves out the massive amount of information we get from other POVs (such as Quentyn, Tyrion and Selmy) how much her perspective has become a tunnel vision and extremely flawed, even if was succesful.

Quentyn's Windlblown chapter reveals that one of the companies (2000 strong) is willing to go over to Dany before even arriving at Mereen. And why are they willing to do so? Because the Yunkai army is ludicrous. Their victory at Astapor is no victory at all - killing sick people and a dead guy on a horse is hardly an achievement. We get men joking about the Yunkai generals and the soldiers they have.

Hostages, good idea, but Dany asks for cutesy hostages she'll never be willing to kill, but hands over the military strategists that she has over to the Yunkai. The Yunkai's army may be nothing more than a freak-show carnival, but she gives them hsotages that are 10 times the strategists than the Yunkai are. Don't make an idle threat you're unwilling to go through with, unless you want people to treat you like a doormat. Dany's mistake wasn't going through with her threat to kill children, but the type of hostages she required. She should have asked for adult heirs from the various families to try and have the Harpy's Sons stop. Now Jon also asked for children, but he knows that those children actually matter to the wildlings, and he knows those wildlings do fear he would actually do it. 

Dany gets the offer of the Windblown comping over in return for a promise to help them sack Pentos. Her current concern should be Mereen, not Pentos. For the sake of Pentos,not Mereen, she rejects the offer. Her decision was not military nor strategically sound, and certainly not for Mereen. She could have agreed and still send a messenger to Pentos to warn Illyrio to prepare for it. Shady sure, but she doesn't even try to find a way to make the offer work. And instead of gaining a company of 2000 men, she loses a compnay of 500 men.

The carnival arrives outside her walls and she's just paralized. She doesn't have them scouted. She doesn't even prepare for the oncoming army with traps, nor tries to sabotage their siege by poisoning the water wells. The enemy simply shows up and the fact that the enemy didn't stay on the ground and gave up alone is enough for her to go "oh, well if they don't stay on the ground, maybe I should drop and stay down instead. And I'll give them my military strategists as hostages while I'm at it. " No wonder that Ben Plumm runs off to the Yunkai. You only have to say "boo!" and she'll make concession after concession. What does Jon do - he's calling Ramsay's bluff.

Is it commendable that Dany tries to negotiate? Of course it is. But when all is said and done, she still gets poisoned locusts offered as food and decides herself she's done with the floppy ears, because the concessions made the peace as hollow as could be.

And that too was part of George's intentions and set-up. Otherwise he wouldn't have written an army with soldiers walking on stilts, and pink plumes waving out of their sexy asses tat predicablty fold in a panic as soon as Selmy makes a sortie, with the companies that supposedly are on the Yunkai side just waiting the inevitable defeat out. Guess what Jon's intention was - a sortie.

George definitely did not write the Mereenese Knot to write that peace at every cost above all else is the right way to go. If he had wanted to do that, he'd have actually written an enemy army that actually was a threat and being reasonable, instead of tauntingly selling slaves just outside of her walls.

[Lord Varys]

17 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Please provide a list of recent raids. I know one northern lord makes this claim, but one lord having this issue in recent times compared to what Tywin does with the Mountain??? Who is the bigger enemy in this story? We know the Ironborn do this, and yet they are part of the seven kingdoms and they still do things like serve in the Night's Watch.

This is not a threat about who is the biggest enemy, nor is the crime of a character made less criminal or bad because there are other people who commit worse crimes. If I rape you and 'make you my wife' (as many wildling raiders do, most notably this Ygon Oldfeather chap) then I've committed a crime and you know and understand that. You don't care that the Mountain is down in the West also committing heinous crimes.

The simply truth is that the wildlings have no right to raid the Gifts or the lands of the clansmen and Umbers, raping and abducting women against their will.

It does not matter how often that happens or how many people come to harm this way. It is wrong. And this kind of the behavior from the wildlings is the only reason why they and the Night's Watch and the Northmen are at odds with each other. If they stayed on their side of the Wall or had peaceful trade relations with the Seven Kingdoms nobody would see them as enemies.

Also note that it is Lord Eddard Stark himself who considers leading an army beyond the Wall to deal with Mance Rayder as early as the beginning of AGoT. He knows the man is a danger to the Watch and the people (the Northmen) he is sworn to protect.

17 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Um, no:

• He remembered the hearth tales Old Nan told them. The wildlings were cruel men, she said, slavers and slayers and thieves. They consorted with giants and ghouls, stole girl children in the dead of night, and drank blood from polished horns. And their women lay with the Others in the Long Night to sire terrible half-human children. >>> So Old Nan, who cares for a teaches the children on some level, is starting the fear in the children at a very young age. And she has done this for a few generations now.

• "He was the fourth this year," Ned said grimly. "The poor man was half-mad. Something had put a fear in him so deep that my words could not reach him." He sighed. "Ben writes that the strength of the Night's Watch is down below a thousand. It's not only desertions. They are losing men on rangings as well."

"Is it the wildlings?" she asked.

"Who else?" Ned lifted Ice, looked down the cool steel length of it. >>> yup, a lord in the north is perpetuating the abnormal fear of wildlings and putting blame on them for a crime that was never theirs.

 

• Sam blinked at the sudden glare and looked around apprehensively. "The Wildlings … they wouldn't … they'd never dare come this close to the Wall. Would they?" >>>even Sam is afeared of wildlings because of exaggerated rumors.
• When they were alone, Lord Tywin glanced at Tyrion. "Your savages might relish a bit of rapine. Tell them they may ride with Vargo Hoat and plunder as they like—goods, stock, women, they may take what they want and burn the rest."
  "Telling Shagga and Timett how to pillage is like telling a rooster how to crow," Tyrion commented, "but I should prefer to keep them with me." Uncouth and unruly they might be, yet the wildlings were his, and he trusted them more than any of his father's men. He was not about to hand them over.   >>>Thank you Tywin for pointing out that the Southron lords are just as bad, if not worse, than the regular ol'wildlings. Not one side is better than the other.This helps spread those rumors about wildlings/mountain men/first men. 
• So this is a wildling. Jon remembered Old Nan's tales of the savage folk who drank blood from human skulls. Craster seemed to be drinking a thin yellow beer from a chipped stone cup. Perhaps he had not heard the stories.   >>> Thank you Jon for pointing out the obvious.

It's ok. Jon has already said that he requires obedience or there will be consequences.

We know Mance's men - he himself, Varamyr, the Weeper, Harma, Rattleshirt, you name it - have all killed black brothers. Some few also have fallen prey to the Others but proclaiming the main danger to the Watch around the time of AGoT and in the years before that were the Others is factually wrong.

And I'm not defending Tywin Lannister's methods of warfare. Why should I?

17 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Source?

Common sense? We see that the raiding parties are not that large, and we know the kind of determined killers people like Ygritte are. If the Gifts and the clansmen had large fortified villages where a small raiding party would face 50 or 100 well-armed and well-trained Northmen they wouldn't have any success at all.

But that's not how things are. Else the wildlings would indeed be a joke as a danger to the smallfolk living close to the Wall. But they are not. That means they attack small villages and settlements swiftly, and are away long before some men-at-arms or petty lords in the region even hear of such an attack.

The average peasant is nothing but a sheep to the wildling wolves.

17 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Sure. I will paste here what I wrote in my other thread because it has some links in it already.

It has to do with the discussion at hand because Marsh stabbed Jon, as we readers are led to believe, because he let the wildlings through and this particular issue with Marsh is built up over the last three books.

Also, you claim some odd things about the service of the wall and understanding Hadrian's wall will help the reader understand the ASOIAF wall as the author intended. I edited out the other stuff that is specific to the other thread. It starts below:

(cut)

(cut)

Here is an excellent article from a historian that actually does Wall to Wall comparison  http://history-behind-game-of-thrones.com/ancienthistory/the-wall

1. We know that the Wall, and therefore much of the Brothers of the NW, are based on Hadrian's Wall, more historically named Vallum Aelium. We know this because George said so in the ancient days of the year 2000. The map of Hadrian's Wall looks suspiciously like the ASIOAF Wall as well. Vallum in Latin is the English word for Wall. Hadrian's Wall was built to keep the "wildlings" ("barbarians" of our day) of the time out of the "civilized" (dragon conquered) realm.

• No sources survive to confirm what the wall was called in antiquity, and no historical literary source gives it a name. This sounds super familiar, doesn't it? How often do we readers talk about, or read about, how the in-world history is shady, not consistent, and indistinguishable from myth? Answer: Every damn day!
• However, the discovery of the Staffordshire Moorlands Pan in Staffordshire in 2003 has provided a clue. This small enamelled bronze Roman trulla (ladle), dating to the 2nd century AD, is inscribed with a series of names of Roman forts along the western sector of the wall, together with a personal name and phrase: MAIS COGGABATA VXELODVNVM CAMBOGLANNA RIGORE VALI AELI DRACONIS. (cut) Many of these names when translated mimic the other wall castle names in the story.
• (cut) We know by now how Jon is tied to the stars, including the ice dragon himself. I pointed out in the main OP that after Jon is chosen as LC, he says repeatedly that the wall is his.
• Part of Hadrian's Wall defenses was a vallum ditch that was dug into the ground and used as a trap. Well, in TWOW, Theon 1, we learn this:
  •   Reveal hidden contents

     

1. It was Hadrian's wish to keep "intact the empire", which had been imposed on him via "divine instruction" (sourced from this book). It is concluded by most that Hadrian made a stop somewhere in the northern frontier to inspect the building of the wall. This sounds exactly like "Good" Queen Alysanne and King Jaehaerys making their not-so-peaceful voyage north that resulted in lands being taken away from the Starks and crucial parts of the Night's Watch being closed off to magic, the northern culture and northern inhabitants of the land.  Remember, George has said many times that the Targaryens think of themselves as "above the gods", and therefore men as well.
2. Hadrian's Wall was even built like the ASOIAF Wall. Wider at the base than the top, and the inner base is made of stone, and it has passage tunnels from one side to the other.
3. There were also garrison's along the wall which ended up being places of political influence rather than the military influence it was supposed to be. It was the political influence that brought Hadrian's wall down. See linked article. We see this exact issue (noted in the OP) with Marsh, Yarwyck and Thorne when Jon first catches them scheming while they are in the bathhouse, and then again a few times as when Thorne tries to convince Jon to join Tywin for political reasons.
4. There is a commanding headquarters there with the name Stanwix. Stanwix... as in King Stannis??? Ya don't say.
5. Stanwix was set up with a special communication system between that location and the next castle called...York... which we know is where George got the inspiration for the Starks. Ya don't say.
6. Hadrian's Wall and the Roman conquest did fail, and the wall was dismantled over time. I wonder if this has any bearing on the ASOIAF story as well???

(cut a bunch)

Ok, Now Lord Varys, you owe me a huge favor for doing your homework for you. I will cash in on that favor one day.

Are you trying to say if the Wall falls the Others will win? It wasn't built to keep out some savage men, it was built to keep out ice demons.

The Wall wasn't built by some foreign conquerors, either. And Hadrian's Wall did stand for centuries and nothing the British did brought the Roman Empire to its knees. The Romans just packed their things and left when the Western Roman Empire declined.

Hadrian's Wall is an inspiration for the Wall, of course. But to take it and then look at history to find out how things unfold in the series doesn't make any sense. George is telling his own story. He draws inspiration from history, he doesn't ape it.

[Lord Freypie]

4 minutes ago, teej6 said:

No one argued that Jon's arc is not about GRRM's interest in showing the human heart in conflict with itself. What other posters and I noted was that you incorrectly stated that GRRM agreed with Feldman's views on his entire essays

I never had the intention to state that Martin agreed on everything Feldman ever said, just mentionned that this blogger was a so good analyst he was praised by the author himself for his understanding (be it only on a particular topic it seems rather rare from Martin).

But you made me verify and if you want the exact GRRM quote it's here and he spoke about "a serie of essays called the Merenese Blot" (name of the whole blog) and use plural everywhere, not "Untangling the Merenese Knot" which is the particular essay about Daenerys (now it's possible he was only speaking about this one and was confusing the blog title and the essay title, doesn't know, seems to be what Feldman himself believes - as essays have many parts it may explain the plural).

 

 

[teej6]

56 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is factually wrong. Stannis hands over Rattleshirt-Mance to Jon, making him his responsibility. That is reinforced again and again in the books. Which is also the reason why Mance is Jon's man, and Jon's man alone, when he goes to Winterfell. The only man aside from Mance himself to be blamed for this is Jon Snow.

You should actually double-check the book before you make such statements.

And it really does not matter whether Jon commanded Mance to go to Winterfell or to pick up his sister on the road (but he certainly is responsible for the actions of his man, Mance, just as Tywin was responsible for the actions of the Mountain and Lorch during the Sack). Jon has no business getting between a husband and his wife. He couldn't do that even if he was a free man. Not even a king can get between a husband and his wife. Baelor the Blessed was concerned for the health of his cousin Naerys in light of her husband Aegon's insistence to sleep with her yet he couldn't forbid him to do this.

But a Lord Commander of the Night's Watch has no business whatsoever in interfering with any marriage, no matter how unpleasant it might be. Even harboring 'Arya' or helping her to flee to Essos (she could have never stayed at the Wall after Mance had brought her there) would be a crime he would lose his head over. 

A wife is very much the property of her husband in this world as you should know, too. A wife swears to obey her lord husband during the wedding, and it is her husband's right to chastise her physically if she disobeys or angers him. There is even a very prominent law, the Rule of Six, regulating this kind of thing.

But as far as we know Ramsay does not actually beat or torture 'Arya' physically. He just forces her to go through rather humiliating and unpleasant sexual experiences. That is ugly and certainly a crime by our standards. But not in Westeros. There is not even marital rape in Westeros. Your wife has to satisfy all your sexual desires not matter how unpleasant they are. 'Arya' can't complain about that, and Jon has no right to protect her against things that aren't crimes by Westerosi standards.

LV, I've said this before, your posts are so long and tedious to read that I can't be bothered to read the entire post. As to Mance being Jon's prisoner, where and when does Stannis hand Mance over to Jon? If you quote the part in the text where this happens, I'll gladly cede the point. As far as I can remember, Mance was Stannis' prisoner and Stannis chose to burn Mance inspite of Jon's protestations to the contrary. I could be wrong and may be misremembering the text. But he's the passage, I'm drawing my conclusion from:

"They brought forth the King-Beyond-the-Wall with his hands bound by hempen rope and a noose around his neck. The other end of the rope was looped about the saddle horn of Ser Godry Farring’s courser. The Giantslayer and his mount were armored in silvered steel inlaid with niello. Mance Rayder wore only a thin tunic that left his limbs naked to the cold. They could have let him keep his cloak, Jon Snow thought, the one the wildling woman patched with strips of crimson silk." ... "“Mance knows the haunted forest better than any ranger,” Jon had told King Stannis, in his final effort to convince His Grace that the King-Beyond-the-Wall would be of more use to them alive than dead. “He knows Tormund Giantsbane. He has fought the Others. And he had the Horn of Joramun and did not blow it. He did not bring down the Wall when he could have.” His words fell on deaf ears. Stannis had remained unmoved. The law was plain; a deserter’s life was forfeit."

From the above, it appears to me that Mance was Stannis prisoner. But as I said, I could be missing other parts of the text and if there's textual evidence to the contrary...

I disagree in your interpretation of a wife being a husband's property even in Westeros. Again point to me where this is clearly stated in the text. A wife swears to obey her husband who swears to protect her. As to the Rule of Six you referred to, I doubt Ramsay was following it to the letter or simply chastising Jeyne Poole. The extend you go to justify these acts baffles me. It's implied that Ramsay had Jeyne Poole be fucked by a dog and you trivalize this as "just humiliating and unpleasant sexual experiences". And besides, Jeyne Poole who's been beaten and tortured before at LF's brothels seems to be totally traumatized by her time with Ramsay, a known torturer and sadist. But continue to make your rediculous arguments, such as, Ramsay just chastised his wife, which of course was his duty as a good husband. I don't even know why I bother responding to you. Your arguments are sometime so out there that it makes me sick. I don't mean to offend you by it, but that's how I feel.   

 

[kissdbyfire]

3 minutes ago, Lord Freypie said:

I never had the intention to state that Martin agreed on everything Feldman ever said, just mentionned that this blogger was a so good analyst he was praised by the author himself for his understanding (be it only on a particular topic it seems rather rare from Martin).

But you made me verify and if you want the exact GRRM quote it's here and he spoke about "a serie of essays called the Merenese Blot" (name of the whole blog) and use plural everywhere, not "Untangling the Merenese Knot" which is the particular essay about Daenerys (now it's possible he was only speaking about this one and was confusing the blog title and the essay title, doesn't know, seems to be what Feldman himself believes - as essays have many parts it may explain the plural).

 

 

My understanding of what Martin says is that he is talking about the Meereenese Knot. 

"He specifically cited the difficulty he had with the Meereenese sections of ADwD, trying to figure out the POV, and he called it the "Meereenese Knot." He admitted being annoyed when some turned it into "the Meerenese Blot", but someone made a series of essays with that title. "I read those when someone pointed them out to me, and I was really pleased with them, because at least one guy got it. He got it completely, he knew exactly what I was trying to do there, and evidently I did it well enough for people who were paying attention." Of course, he added that some other essays depress him when people get everything wrong, and when people get everything wrong, well, whose fault is it? It could be his fault because he didn't write it well enough, but who knows?"

That's why he says "there", he was talking about difficulties he had with the story in Meereen. 

[teej6]

2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

My understanding of what Martin says is that he is talking about the Meereenese Knot. 

"He specifically cited the difficulty he had with the Meereenese sections of ADwD, trying to figure out the POV, and he called it the "Meereenese Knot." He admitted being annoyed when some turned it into "the Meerenese Blot", but someone made a series of essays with that title. "I read those when someone pointed them out to me, and I was really pleased with them, because at least one guy got it. He got it completely, he knew exactly what I was trying to do there, and evidently I did it well enough for people who were paying attention." Of course, he added that some other essays depress him when people get everything wrong, and when people get everything wrong, well, whose fault is it? It could be his fault because he didn't write it well enough, but who knows?"

That's why he says "there", he was talking about difficulties he had with the story in Meereen. 

^ Exactly. GRRM was responding in the context of the difficulties he had with the Meereenese plot and how people began to question his reasons for the storyline. His appreciation of Feldman's essays, to me, seems very specific to the Meereen storyline. 

[JonSnow4President]

4 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

 

Hey JS4P. It's been a long time. I'll take a minute to respond to you cuz I like ya. 

The point the books are making is that the free folk of all clans are the same as those people south of the wall. The idea that the wildlings are the ones to fight is new compared to the history of the wall and with the Others not being seen in thousands of years. 

George is a hippy and in his eyes the wall creates division, the opposite of unity. Berlin, Mexican border, Hadrians. He talks about them and what those on one side thought of the other. Especially Hadrian's where he says in interviews that the English thought the Scots to be some bog dwelling monsters... but they were just people. 

As far as Jarl, how many babies were eaten in his raids? As far as women, there is one Umber girl I can think of (and she probably went willingly and is with Mance when he snuck on his own side mission to Winterfell) 

The free folk know what they are. They don't hide it. But are they worse than people like Tywin, Lord Tarly, or half the Targaryens and the bow or burn motto? No. 

And it is also ironic that the wall, the shield that defends the realms of men, including the king, is now defended by actual tapers, murderers, and thieves since the Wall is now a not-so-glorified prison. 

So Marsh, if not magicked by Mel, self fulfilled his own fears and brought down the wall because it no longer stood strong. 

 

-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." 

She was not wrong. The trick was telling one from the other, parting the sheep from the goats.

Thanks, I like you too.

I might be misunderstanding you (probably the case in my experience), but I think you're reading to much into the wildlings are not the true enemy. Much of their attacks are mythicised in a hyperbolic manner (your drinking blood, possibly a willing umber lady), but the attacks exist, and enough for a dozen wildlings to have near universal notoriety in the north. For our storyline, we focus on highborn characters, with the only northern (at least geographically) povs being children, which doesn't give us a good lense into the attacks on the small folk. The watch had dealt with enough wildling violence to have specific procedures in place to defend against it. So downplaying it to the point where a reader can think you're saying wildling attacks are exceedingly rare as to be an almost nonexistent event is the only part I took any issue with. 

Martin is absolutely clear that nothing about the wildlings is fundamentally different from the northerners. But they (watch included here) were humans that legitimately fought and skirmished for the last several centuries (if not longer.)

[kissdbyfire]

34 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, but the fact that Stannis handed over Mance to Jon means Jon had both the right and the duty to execute the man when he found out who he was. He could (and should) have done it. Melisandre and Stannis wouldn't have been able to stop him.

True. But Jon decided against executing Mance. And think he was right, I think it was the right decision, even if going against the NW rules and traditions. 

Quote

We can be pretty sure that this is not going to change. It is not just the law but the way the overwhelming majority of men see and treat women in this series. George created a very misogynistic world. It is not going to change.

No, we cannot. We cannot, and I dare say, should not, expect the world to remain exactly the same. In fact, it has already started to change. Both Jon and Dany are bringing about changes that are absolutely necessary. 

Quote

And thinking about this - you even see this misogyny in Jon Snow. Arya Stark doesn't need a strong manly savior. If she was truly Ramsay's bride she would take her of herself as we very well know.

No, Jon is not being misogynistic, he knows Arya will not accept something if she doesn't want to. He knows Arya would likely as not try to fight her way out of a situation like this. All the more reason to try and help. 

“Lord Snow?” Clydas peered at him closely with his dim pink eyes. “Are you … unwell? You seem …”
“He’s to marry Arya Stark. My little sister.” Jon could almost see her in that moment, long-faced and gawky, all knobby knees and sharp elbows, with her dirty face and tangled hair. They would wash the one and comb the other, he did not doubt, but he could not imagine Arya in a wedding gown, nor Ramsay Bolton’s bed. No matter how afraid she is, she will not show it. If he tries to lay a hand on her, she’ll fight him.”

---

something went wrong here, I have one more point to address and will edit this to include it.

And the last poin of your reply to me:

"Perhaps she was but we actually don't know that. What we know is that Ramsay plays sexual games with her that include Theon somehow, and I'm pretty sure inflicting pain is also part of those games (after all, Ramsay is a sexual sadist). But that, too, would be part of the rights a husband has in a marriage."

And the fact is, we do know it! And everyone at Winterfell do too. 

AdwD, The Turncloak

 

“The bride weeps,” Lady Dustin said, as they made their way down, step by careful step. “Our little Lady Arya.”
Take care now. Take care, take care. He put one hand on the wall. The shifting torchlight made the steps seem to move beneath his feet. “As … as you say, m’lady.”
“Roose is not pleased. Tell your bastard that.”
He is not my bastard, he wanted to say, but another voice inside him said, He is, he is. Reek belongs to Ramsay, and Ramsay belongs to Reek. You must not forget your name.
“Dressing her in grey and white serves no good if the girl is left to sob. The Freys may not care, but the northmen … they fear the Dreadfort, but they love the Starks.”
“Not you,” said Theon.
“Not me,” the Lady of Barrowton confessed, “but the rest, yes. Old Whoresbane is only here because the Freys hold the Greatjon captive. And do you imagine the Hornwood men have forgotten the Bastard’s last marriage, and how his lady wife was left to starve, chewing her own fingers? What do you think passes through their heads when they hear the new bride weeping? Valiant Ned’s precious little girl.”

 

[teej6]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Then perhaps stay out of the discussion entirely?

Haven't you read ADwD? This is not something you can miss easily:

Mance is here very obviously swearing allegiance to Jon Snow. And it is also quite clear that Stannis knows who the hell this Rattleshirt guy is. That's why he gives him to Jon. Jon convinced him to spare Mance's life, after all, and since Stannis and Jon are both fighting the Others they have need of Mance's knowledge.

But his continues:

In exchange for the information on the clansmen Stannis also hands over all the wildlings he has captured to Jon's jurisdiction. He is not only responsible for Mance but also for the other wildlings, including the spearwives Mance takes to Winterfell. The only prisoners that remain Stannis' are Val and Mance's son (who Jon actually stole).

This is reinforced again in the Melisandre chapter. I suggest you reread that yourself. But I guess you have even less time to read the primary literature you are trying to talk about (or not) than you have to read to responses of the people you discuss with.

It is implicitly the case. In every society where one gender rules over another by 'protecting it' the other is in a weaker position. Marriage was just a way to control and own women in our world, too, and still is in societies where it is arranged. The real cool thing about the protecting part is the fact that you can also protect your wife from herself that way. From getting out and being raped by strangers. Or from learning to much, from getting too much into her silly head, etc. Everything you *protect* belongs to you in a certain way.

How normal wives as property is made very clear in the manner in which Aegon the Unworthy buys Merry Meg from her husband and how this man later kills the woman that shamed him by becoming the whore of a prince. He doesn't break any laws killing her. He chastises her following the Rule of Six, slowly beating her to death each day over a period of months.

I don't justify them, I point out that these things are no crimes in the society we are talking about here. You have to complain to George about that, not me.

Can you back that up with a quote? I must have missed that. I recall there are allusions to some of the things Ramsay did but I don't remember anything concrete. Aren't Ramsay's dogs all female, named after the women he killed?

You should also feel sick by the idea of a husband chastising his wife. That is sick, too. I never said that I think it was Ramsay's duty to chastise Jeyne. I just pointed out the laws and customs of the society he lives him allow him to abuse and mistreat his wife however he sees fit unless he doesn't kill her. It is the husband who decides when his wife deserves to be chastised, not she or some independent authority. It is quite clear that Jeyne has never done anything to deserve the treatment she gets but the rules of the society she lives in simply don't care about that. You may also recall that Sansa was completely at Tyrion's mercy in ASoS, right? Completely at his mercy, not just in regards to marital rape but also in any other way. That's what marriage is in Westeros. Or rather, it is what it can also be.

Perhaps it is unusual or even considered sick to chastise your wife the Ramsay way but it is quite clear that it is not something people are allowed to interfere with. What happens in the bedchamber of a married couple is their business, and no one else's. Especially if we are talking about noble people.

The important things are appearances. 'Arya' should not weep openly or appear overly unhappy because that could look bad with the honest Stark loyalists. But nobody cares about her true feelings. If they did, they would have never married her to Ramsay in the first place.

It's my prerogative if I wish to engage in a discussion or not on this thread. I didn't say I didn't want to discuss the thread with other objective posters, what I said was your posts are always long, rambling and highly subjective that a debate with you becomes difficult.  My comment was specific to your posts not this general discussion. 

The line you quoted about Stannis handing Rattleshirt over to Jon can be easily missed. That does not imply one hasn't read the books. Even your insults seem to fall flat. And if you're basing your whole argument that Jon could have hung Mance on this line, I have to say that the evidence to support your case isn't strong as it isn't clear from this line that Jon was at liberty to hang Rattleshirt. When Stannis gives Rattlshirt to Jon, Jon does not know it's Mance and Stannis is not giving Jon leeway to execute Rattlshirt but use him as another fighting body. When Mel hands him over as a gift to earn Jon's trust again she's not giving Mance to Jon to be hanged but rather as a gift to be used. Could Jon have told Mel no I'm going to hang him? Perhaps he could have but I still don't think it's all that clear from the text that Stannis/Mel have given Jon the right to hang Rattleshirt/Mance as you claim.

As to Jeyne Poole being forced to have sex with a dog, I said it's implied (or as you put it alluded to) not stated. This was in response to your stupid argument that Jeyne was not tortured by Ramsay but only underwent humiliating and unpleasant sexual experiences. And yes, I know Ramsay's bitches are all female hence the term bitches. But I'm sure Ramsay can find a dog somewhere in the North if he puts his mind to it, don't you think? Or are you saying that the male line of the dog species is extinct in the North?

Any objective reader will see that GRRM implicitly shows that Jeyne went through hell in the hands of Ramsay. But then of course, I forget you are not objective, and you'll say anything to win an argument, even trivialize Jeyne's suffering in WF. 

I asked you to provide textual evidence to your argument that a wife is a man's property, which you can't. What Aegon the Unworthy (a man known for his cruelity who also happens to be king) did is not indicative of the acceptable morality, practice or norm in Westeros. You've got to do better than that. If as you say a woman is a man's property for him to do what he likes with her, I wonder why the Northern lords took umbrage with Lady Hornwood's treatment at the hands of Ramsay.

And please tell me where I stated that I was comfortable with a man chastising his wife. You brought up the whole argument about it being acceptable practice in Westeros for a man to chastise his wife not I. What I stated was that you were incorrectly equating Ramsay's treatment of Jeyne with a man chastising his wife. And GRRM is not the one justifying Ramsay's behaviour, you are. You can twist my words and meaning all you want (this is what I meant when I said that you ramble in your posts and make little to no sense most of the time) but you still can't convince anyone that Ramsay was just acting out his responsibility as a Westerosi husband in his treatment of Jeyne Poole, which is what you said and meant in your earlier post. 

[sweetsunray]

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

What Aegon the Unworthy (a man known for his cruelity who also happens to be king) did is not indicative of the acceptable morality, practice or norm in Westeros. You've got to do better than that. If as you say a woman is a man's property for him to do what he likes with her, I wonder why the Northern lords took umbrage with Lady Hornwood's treatment at the hands of Ramsay.

Before he was king, Baelor sent him to Braavos in 161 AC so he'd leave Naerys the hell alone (who was nearly dead from failed delivery). It's not stated how long that diolomatic mission was supposed to last, but we have no acknowledged pregnancies or deliveries of Naerys anymore until 172 AC (when Aegon IV was king). Meanwhile Aegon met Bellegere Oterys (Black Pearl) in Braavos and had an affair with her for ten year (from 161 AC until 171 AC), and had 3 children of doubtful paternity in those years. Despite the fact that Aegon had at one time one mistress shacked up in KL (from 155 AC-159 AC) + personal Dornish hostage shacked up in his room (from 158 AC-161 AC) + getting Naerys preggers (in 161 AC), suddenly from 161 AC until 170 AC he only has one woman apparently he's with - the Black Pearl in Braavos. Then in 170 AC Daena gives birth to Aegon's son Daemon (towards the end of 170 AC), but she doesn't disclose the father.

It sounds to me that Aegon was sent on officious exile indefnitely, and was not recalled back to KL, nor was he supposed to be in KL imo in 170 AC. He likely was in KL in 170 incognito, and persona non grata at Baelor's court. Baelor dies, and Viserys is king for a year. Not even Viserys seems to have recalled his son back. Then Viserys dies of "sudden illness" (quite suspiciously). Well with Aegon very likely in Braavos we can surmise that he paid for tears of lys to be used. 

Whether he was officially allowed at court from 170 AC is debatable, but there's complete absence of Aegon being in Westeros between 161 AC and 170 AC. 9 years officious exile to Braavos in other words, partially so he wouldn't end up killing Naerys for insisting to do her wifely duty to him.

So, yeah, fully agree. Plenty of men care about women not being abuse. Just because there are some sickoes in Westeros in position of power who think they can get away with anything, that does not mean that's either acceptable or even lawful.