Jump to content

“For the watch”


Richard Hoffman

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, kissdbyfire said:

But where and when is this accusation made?

No, he doesn't. Look at the punctuation and use of italics in the convo. 

That was Rattleshirt, Jon almost said. That was sorcery. A glamor, she called it. “Melisandre … look to the skies, she said.” He set the letter down. “A raven in a storm. She saw this coming.” When you have your answers, send to me.
“Might be all a skin o’ lies.” Tormund scratched under his beard. “If I had me a nice goose quill and a pot o’ maester’s ink, I could write down that me member was long and thick as me arm, wouldn’t make it so.”
“He has Lightbringer. He talks of heads upon the walls of Winterfell. He knows about the spearwives and their number.” He knows about Mance Rayder. “No. There is truth in there.”
“I won’t say you’re wrong. What do you mean to do, crow?”

 

Yes, quite right.  Italics representing internal thought.  So he doesn't tell him out loud.  He tells Tormund there is truth in it and it's not all lies and Tormund says that he won't say Jon is wrong.  He'll take it on Jon's word then even if he doesn't know the full truth of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LynnS said:

Yes, quite right.  Italics representing internal thought.  So he doesn't tell him out loud.  He tells Tormund there is truth in it and it's not all lies and Tormund says that he won't say Jon is wrong.  He'll take it on Jon's word then even if he doesn't know the full truth of it.

Yes. And Tormund's behaviour and his words indicate that he doesn't know about the switcheroo and/or that Mance is alive. He may have been told more by Jon when they chat for 2 hours, but we can't be sure. Regardless of whether Jon told him or not, his behaviour and words in the Shieldhall, same as Jon's, don't contradict the contents of the letter in any way. There's no break, no time lapse, nothing to indicate that it didn't happen exactly the way it's on the page: Jon reads the letter, and the free folk go mad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/5/2017 at 0:13 AM, Bowen Marsh said:

Dear Mr. Hoffman,

It is very kind of you to show interests in these matters.  It will be my pleasure to talk about what happened on that day when we had to execute Jon Snow.  After all, I am the only member of this forum who was present when it happened.  I was there at the meeting and heard Snow's revelations and intentions.  I was there when the execution took place.  Know that these words are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

It was never my intentions to punish Jon for his treason though he deserved an execution for those crimes.  The assassination was a desperate act.  My brothers and myself had no choice.  It was our responsibility to prevent our mad commander from committing an act so unspeakably vile.  He put together an army of wildlings for the purpose of attacking Lord Ramsay Bolton, the heir to the warden of the North.  This is an unprecedented act of aggression.  At no point in our long history has a sitting lord commander ever did anything so illegal as to attack the citizens that we are supposed to be protecting.  This is a clear violation of our oaths and vows.   Even the ancient Night's King drew the line at attacking the people of the north.

What Jon has been doing to get his sister away from Lord Ramsay was already an act of war.  Wildlings acting under Jon's orders went to Winterfell under the guise of friendship and murdered the servants of Lord Roose.  A violation of guest rights by even liberal standards.  He deserved to be removed from his office for this act alone and given an appointment with the chopping block.

Jon planned to further aggravate an already tense situation by making a direct assault on Lord Ramsay and his men.  It was our duty to prevent this atrocity from happening.  Jon was beyond reason by this time and his behavior in the past is an indication that he never valued our counsel nor took our concerns to heart.  Execution was the only way to stop him.

Neither I nor the brave men who followed me were warged nor under the influence of another.  What we did we did of our own free will and out of love and loyalty to the kingdom of Westeros and the watch.  It was a hard decision and one that we did not take pleasure in.  Jon just put us in a difficult situation.  Any blame should rest on his shoulders.  This is all his fault. 

I am proud of the men who helped me take down Jon Snow.  They are all men of honor who risked their lives to prevent war between our former lord commander and the Boltons.  We should make common cause and build an alliance with the warden of the north instead of trying to steal away the bride of his son.  Killing people we are supposed to protect is conduct that is not acceptable for a lord commander of the night's watch.  Our lives are fair trade to stop someone like that and take him down.

I do not have an explanation for Jon's inability to pull his sword out from its scabbard.  Perhaps we took him by surprise and maybe the ice had something to do with it.  Water on the blade will freeze and turn to ice causing a bind between metal and leather.  Perhaps the Gods are punishing him for the unjust execution of our sworn brother, Janos Slynt, and they caused the blade to bind. 

 

For the Watch - Bowen Marsh

:)

You and your friends deserve medals.  What you did was an act of courage to take on your nutty lord commander.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2017 at 0:39 PM, Richard Hoffman said:

 

 

Still, the question isn’t the motives, the question is why pick the worst time and place to actually pull it off? 

They were short on time.  Jon was almost ready to ride out of the castle to raid the Boltons.  They either do it then or let Jon and his wildling pack attack winterfell.  It's not premeditated and it was hastily planned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

But where and when is this accusation made?

In the Pink Letter the author accuses Stannis and Jon of lying about burning him and instead sending him to Winterfell. He doesn't specifically name Melisandre, but for people who witnessed the burning and believe the claim, Melisandre would need to be the one responsible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

The problem Jon was causing was contained at first.  A lot of people were unhappy when he killed Janos and spared Mance but the problem was internal to the watch at that point.  It became more than incompetent leadership and an unjust judgment when he sent the Wildlings to infiltrate Winterfell and take his sister out.  That was a direct attack on a noble house of the north and rose to the level of treason.

No, a few of Janos's faction were appalled and frightened as it became clear that the boy commander actually intended to exercise his authority and punish mutineers rather than be bullied and turned into a lame duck by the likes of Slynt and Thorne.  All Janos Slynt had to do was go and command the castle that was entrusted to him but he had bigger ideas in mind, namely Tywin and Cersei's plots to get rid of Jon, and he wanted to be at Castle Black where he could scheme and build up support.  I imagine Slynt thought he would get a reprieve out of it - this is what Cersei proposes to Osney Kettleblack after all.  There is nothing unjust about Slynt's execution and I am puzzled by the argument that there is: Stannis's nod of approval surely gives us an outsider's perspective that fellow traveler Marsh lacks.

I'll assume you are quite aware that Mance was sent to find Arya near Long Lake, not to "commit treason" but I'll conjecture that Mel gave Stannis the idea that bringing Arya back was essential to him personally somehow - perhaps a threat on his son's life? I genuinely do not know why Mance would be so interested in sacrificing himself or / and the spearwives in WF to secure Arya unless it was for his son's life but I don't remember this being clear in the text.  Either way, Jon does not send him to kidnap Arya but to rescue a girl who has already fled and give her guestright and sactuary.

Also, you know every noble House in the North is either involved in open rebellion (aka treason) against Bolton or preparing to back Stannis for restoring Rickon Stark, right?  Everyone's a traitor but like with Aerys the traitors are the ones in the right.  That seems to be something the anti-Jon crowd lose track of when they canonise St Janos and Roose Bolton, the lawful Warden of the North and his leal bannerman Ramsey the lawful Lord of Winterfell.  It's been said a few times that GRRM wants us to consider whether blind obedience to the law or to orders is the right thing to do, when the law or the orders are odious.  This seems a crystal clear example in that the reader is not supposed to root for these people.

5 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Jon's arc is about someone who swore to take on a great responsibility and betrayed that responsibility for personal reasons.  He couldn't do what he asked the other men to do.  Jon failed to live up to the standards that he and the other lord commanders before him required of every man of the watch.  Jon was a failure because he can't place the greater good over his affection for the Starks.  Jon should never have been in a position to command.  He could have been fine as a ranger as long as he's not the head ranger.  But leadership is not where he deserved to be.

Suffice to say that is not how I seee his arc! 

All three of Jon, Dany and Tyrion are shown facing insurmountable problems in ruling because this 1) adds a lot of drama to their plot lines and 2) it's what GRRM is interested in: see i) his reference to Faulkner about the human heart in conflict with itself being the only thing worth writing about and ii) his critique of JRRT for good king Aragorn not facing any realistic problems in governing a large realm.

Jon's entire arc is about accepting responsibility and finding the best way to go about doing so when he faces hopelessly difficult conflicting choices: 1) his instinctive reaction to desert and avenge his father when he learns of his execution vs. his duty to his oath to the NW (love vs duty); 2) his decision to spare Ygritte despite Qhorin's order to kill her (morality vs necessity); 3) his seemingly hopeless predicament when Qhorin demands he infiltrate the Wildlings, appearing to foreswear his vows and killing Qhorin in the process (honour vs duty); 4) his refusal to kill the old man captured by the Thenns near Queenscrown and his abandonment of Ygritte (duty vs love, morality vs necessity); 5) allowing the wildings through the Wall and into the NW over Marsh et al's objections because they are not the real enemy and can be turned into allies (open-mindedness and adaptation vs ideology and bigotry); 6) sending a rescue mission to Hardhome agasint the objections of Marsh about supplies (humanity vs inhumanity, optimism and risk-taking vs pessimism and conservatism); 7) supporting Stannis enough to prevent him from simply seizing the NW castles for himself while deflecting him against the Ironborn still holding Deepwood Motte, note not agasint the Boltons, though Stannis knows well enough he will have to fight that battle when the time comes (duty vs necessity, rigid neutrality vs pragmatism).

Re the bolded: Mormont chose Jon to be his steward precisely because he and Aemon identified almost immediately that Jon had leadership capabilities that could be developed.  Is it too early for him to lead effectively?  It's earlier than intended, yes, as he lacks experience (see Dany and Tyrion...) but it seems The Old Bear saw something you don't want to acknowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

No, a few of Janos's faction were appalled and frightened as it became clear that the boy commander actually intended to exercise his authority and punish mutineers rather than be bullied and turned into a lame duck by the likes of Slynt and Thorne.  All Janos Slynt had to do was go and command the castle that was entrusted to him but he had bigger ideas in mind, namely Tywin and Cersei's plots to get rid of Jon, and he wanted to be at Castle Black where he could scheme and build up support.  I imagine Slynt thought he would get a reprieve out of it - this is what Cersei proposes to Osney Kettleblack after all.  There is nothing unjust about Slynt's execution and I am puzzled by the argument that there is: Stannis's nod of approval surely gives us an outsider's perspective that fellow traveler Marsh lacks.

I'll assume you are quite aware that Mance was sent to find Arya near Long Lake, not to "commit treason" but I'll conjecture that Mel gave Stannis the idea that bringing Arya back was essential to him personally somehow - perhaps a threat on his son's life? I genuinely do not know why Mance would be so interested in sacrificing himself or / and the spearwives in WF to secure Arya unless it was for his son's life but I don't remember this being clear in the text.  Either way, Jon does not send him to kidnap Arya but to rescue a girl who has already fled and give her guestright and sactuary.

Also, you know every noble House in the North is either involved in open rebellion (aka treason) against Bolton or preparing to back Stannis for restoring Rickon Stark, right?  Everyone's a traitor but like with Aerys the traitors are the ones in the right.  That seems to be something the anti-Jon crowd lose track of when they canonise St Janos and Roose Bolton, the lawful Warden of the North and his leal bannerman Ramsey the lawful Lord of Winterfell.  It's been said a few times that GRRM wants us to consider whether blind obedience to the law or to orders is the right thing to do, when the law or the orders are odious.  This seems a crystal clear example in that the reader is not supposed to root for these people.

Suffice to say that is not how I seee his arc! 

All three of Jon, Dany and Tyrion are shown facing insurmountable problems in ruling because this 1) adds a lot of drama to their plot lines and 2) it's what GRRM is interested in: see i) his reference to Faulkner about the human heart in conflict with itself being the only thing worth writing about and ii) his critique of JRRT for good king Aragorn not facing any realistic problems in governing a large realm.

Jon's entire arc is about accepting responsibility and finding the best way to go about doing so when he faces hopelessly difficult conflicting choices: 1) his instinctive reaction to desert and avenge his father when he learns of his execution vs. his duty to his oath to the NW (love vs duty); 2) his decision to spare Ygritte despite Qhorin's order to kill her (morality vs necessity); 3) his seemingly hopeless predicament when Qhorin demands he infiltrate the Wildlings, appearing to foreswear his vows and killing Qhorin in the process (honour vs duty); 4) his refusal to kill the old man captured by the Thenns near Queenscrown and his abandonment of Ygritte (duty vs love, morality vs necessity); 5) allowing the wildings through the Wall and into the NW over Marsh et al's objections because they are not the real enemy and can be turned into allies (open-mindedness and adaptation vs ideology and bigotry); 6) sending a rescue mission to Hardhome agasint the objections of Marsh about supplies (humanity vs inhumanity, optimism and risk-taking vs pessimism and conservatism); 7) supporting Stannis enough to prevent him from simply seizing the NW castles for himself while deflecting him against the Ironborn still holding Deepwood Motte, note not agasint the Boltons, though Stannis knows well enough he will have to fight that battle when the time comes (duty vs necessity, rigid neutrality vs pragmatism).

Re the bolded: Mormont chose Jon to be his steward precisely because he and Aemon identified almost immediately that Jon had leadership capabilities that could be developed.  Is it too early for him to lead effectively?  It's earlier than intended, yes, as he lacks experience (see Dany and Tyrion...) but it seems The Old Bear saw something you don't want to acknowledge.

13

I pretty much agree with all of this. For me, it comes again to the question of what we believe the "right thing" is. It isn't that I don't get that Jon's actions could be construed in a bad way because he is "breaking the rules"; it's that Ramsay is such a blight on the face of the North that the worst thing a good man can do is sit by and let evil happen. As far as I am concerned, the neutrality of the Wall is stupid; they are supposed to defend the realms of man but what if there are "monsters" threatening the Watchers of the Wall from within that realm.

GRRM really did set both sides up well in the attack on Jon, letting us really think as to who is in the right or wrong and the solution we come to is based on what we personally believe is right. I came out on Jon's side, there are plenty who would come out on Bowen Marsh's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/3/2017 at 7:01 PM, The Fattest Leech said:

You must be kidding? They were going to dispose of any new LC that was not one of them, and they have tried a few times to kill Jon, while trying to pull a Baelish and making it appear as though their hands are clean. Like I said before, they had a plan to kill Jon, and the mutiny after the letter was rushed and opportunistic of the circumstances. It did not matter what was happening with the wildlings, Ramsay, Mance going to Long Lake, etc, because they just wanted him dead because they were meddling in the affairs of the southron kingdoms.

snip

The four conspirators (four horsemen of the apocalypse) have been plotting against Jon for a long time. Jon identifies them as "enemies" throughout the books. Thorne has a chip on his shoulder for having been sent to the wall because of Ned, Janos is a lickspittle that totally screwed his own kingsguard brothers out of money when he was in KL (so, a known traitor), Yarwyck is one who sorta backs off during the LC election process, and we have Bowen Marsh with the in-your-face betrayal of "pomegranate" as the one who hastily carries out the plan.
 
snip
 

None of this means they were not plotting, as the text quotes above show.

Agree to disagree on this one.  Your examples of plotting in the text are well-taken, but to me they only indicate plotting prior to the election of the new Lord Commander of the Night's Watch.  I also think it's important to differentiate between particularly Slynt on the one hand, and Marsh and Yarwyck on the other (Thorne kind of occupies a middle ground in my mind where he is loyal to the institution of the NW, but at the same time consumed by personal animosity and grievances towards Jon).  Slynt is obviously one end of the spectrum- he has no loyalty to the NW and couldn't care less about it, he only cares about politics and power.  But Marsh and Yarwyck, in their own delusional incorrect way,  behave with loyalty towards the NW and its institutions.  I don't believe that we have seen any evidence of continued plotting by them once Jon wins LC.  

3 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Snip

Suffice to say that is not how I seee his arc! 

All three of Jon, Dany and Tyrion are shown facing insurmountable problems in ruling because this 1) adds a lot of drama to their plot lines and 2) it's what GRRM is interested in: see i) his reference to Faulkner about the human heart in conflict with itself being the only thing worth writing about and ii) his critique of JRRT for good king Aragorn not facing any realistic problems in governing a large realm.

Jon's entire arc is about accepting responsibility and finding the best way to go about doing so when he faces hopelessly difficult conflicting choices: 1) his instinctive reaction to desert and avenge his father when he learns of his execution vs. his duty to his oath to the NW (love vs duty); 2) his decision to spare Ygritte despite Qhorin's order to kill her (morality vs necessity); 3) his seemingly hopeless predicament when Qhorin demands he infiltrate the Wildlings, appearing to foreswear his vows and killing Qhorin in the process (honour vs duty); 4) his refusal to kill the old man captured by the Thenns near Queenscrown and his abandonment of Ygritte (duty vs love, morality vs necessity); 5) allowing the wildings through the Wall and into the NW over Marsh et al's objections because they are not the real enemy and can be turned into allies (open-mindedness and adaptation vs ideology and bigotry); 6) sending a rescue mission to Hardhome agasint the objections of Marsh about supplies (humanity vs inhumanity, optimism and risk-taking vs pessimism and conservatism); 7) supporting Stannis enough to prevent him from simply seizing the NW castles for himself while deflecting him against the Ironborn still holding Deepwood Motte, note not agasint the Boltons, though Stannis knows well enough he will have to fight that battle when the time comes (duty vs necessity, rigid neutrality vs pragmatism).

Re the bolded: Mormont chose Jon to be his steward precisely because he and Aemon identified almost immediately that Jon had leadership capabilities that could be developed.  Is it too early for him to lead effectively?  It's earlier than intended, yes, as he lacks experience (see Dany and Tyrion...) but it seems The Old Bear saw something you don't want to acknowledge.

Really well put.  A lot of this Jon hate just comes across as trolling honestly, but your reasoned argument is still welcome.  I particularly agree with your summation of Jon's arc (and in the process Dany's arc as well) in ADWD.  I think obviously neither one is a perfect leader and mistakes were made throughout their respective rules, but at the same time neither one is written to be in the wrong, ethically speaking.  Dany is fighting to end slavery in hopelessly difficult circumstances, and Jon is fighting to stop the extinction of an entire group of people in equally hopeless circumstances.  It's important to note the when of Jon's decision to allow the wildlings through.  He does not start out the book dead set on doing so, in many ways and instances he agrees with Marsh.  This changes during the trip to the weirwood grove when Jon encounters the injured and freezing wildlings and listens to the new recruits recite the NW oath.  At this moment it dawns on Jon that he is the shield that guards the realms of men, the same realization that Mormont arrives at shortly before his death.  The NW has lost its true purpose as both men lament.  And it is Jon's unfortunate attempts to get men like Marsh and Yarwyck to change their opinions that signify much of his arc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

No, a few of Janos's faction were appalled and frightened as it became clear that the boy commander actually intended to exercise his authority and punish mutineers rather than be bullied and turned into a lame duck by the likes of Slynt and Thorne.  All Janos Slynt had to do was go and command the castle that was entrusted to him but he had bigger ideas in mind, namely Tywin and Cersei's plots to get rid of Jon, and he wanted to be at Castle Black where he could scheme and build up support.  I imagine Slynt thought he would get a reprieve out of it - this is what Cersei proposes to Osney Kettleblack after all.  There is nothing unjust about Slynt's execution and I am puzzled by the argument that there is: Stannis's nod of approval surely gives us an outsider's perspective that fellow traveler Marsh lacks.

I'll assume you are quite aware that Mance was sent to find Arya near Long Lake, not to "commit treason" but I'll conjecture that Mel gave Stannis the idea that bringing Arya back was essential to him personally somehow - perhaps a threat on his son's life? I genuinely do not know why Mance would be so interested in sacrificing himself or / and the spearwives in WF to secure Arya unless it was for his son's life but I don't remember this being clear in the text.  Either way, Jon does not send him to kidnap Arya but to rescue a girl who has already fled and give her guestright and sactuary.

Also, you know every noble House in the North is either involved in open rebellion (aka treason) against Bolton or preparing to back Stannis for restoring Rickon Stark, right?  Everyone's a traitor but like with Aerys the traitors are the ones in the right.  That seems to be something the anti-Jon crowd lose track of when they canonise St Janos and Roose Bolton, the lawful Warden of the North and his leal bannerman Ramsey the lawful Lord of Winterfell.  It's been said a few times that GRRM wants us to consider whether blind obedience to the law or to orders is the right thing to do, when the law or the orders are odious.  This seems a crystal clear example in that the reader is not supposed to root for these people.

Very well said! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I recall correctly Jon says something about the food smelling better then it had any right too.  I think the food was laced with basilisk blood.  “Basilisk blood. It will give cooked meat a savory smell. But, if eaten, it produces violent madness... in beasts as well as men. A mouse will attack a lion after a taste of basilisk blood. But to a man who knows his heart, is not passion a form of madness?”  I do believe this is why Jon breaks his vow, why he gets stabbed and why Wun Wun was attacked.   I admit I didn’t read through all the posts so if it’s been brought up before I apologize. 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2017 at 0:46 PM, Widowmaker 811 said:

Jon was not the glue that was holding the watch after he sent the wildlings to take Arya from Ramsay.  That one act tore down the wall and the night's watch.  Jon dragged the night's watch into his war with Ramsay.  Bear in mind that Jon should not have any war with Ramsay for any reason whatsoever.  Jon became the one-man wrecking crew that destroyed the night's watch.  All Bowen Marsh and the other loyal men were trying to do is to prevent Jon from making the situation any worse than what he had already made it.  Killing Jon was necessary and it may allow the night's watch to prevent more conflict with the Boltons.  They can send Jon's head to Ramsay and say they cleaned house, got rid of their traitor commander, and will not push their nose into Bolton affairs any more.  

I agree on all points.  Jon is the one to blame for all that happened leading up to his execution.  The Pink Letter exposed Jon's illegal activities and with nothing more left to hide he chose to bring his feud with Ramsay several notches up and take it to war.  Cutting off Jon's head and sending it to Winterfell will bring goodwill and avoid a war between the NW and House Bolton. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/3/2017 at 7:01 PM, The Fattest Leech said:

You must be kidding? They were going to dispose of any new LC that was not one of them, and they have tried a few times to kill Jon, while trying to pull a Baelish and making it appear as though their hands are clean. Like I said before, they had a plan to kill Jon, and the mutiny after the letter was rushed and opportunistic of the circumstances. It did not matter what was happening with the wildlings, Ramsay, Mance going to Long Lake, etc, because they just wanted him dead because they were meddling in the affairs of the southron kingdoms.

A Storm of Swords - Jon X

"We're not sending you to talk with Mance Rayder," Ser Alliser said. "We're sending you to kill him."
The wind whistled through the bars, and Jon Snow shivered. His leg was throbbing, and his head. He was not fit to kill a kitten, yet here he was. The trap had teeth. With Maester Aemon insisting on Jon's innocence, Lord Janos had not dared to leave him in the ice to die. This was better. "Our honor means no more than our lives, so long as the realm is safe," Qhorin Halfhand had said in the Frostfangs. He must remember that. Whether he slew Mance or only tried and failed, the free folk would kill him. Even desertion was impossible, if he'd been so inclined; to Mance he was a proven liar and betrayer.
 

 

The four conspirators (four horsemen of the apocalypse) have been plotting against Jon for a long time. Jon identifies them as "enemies" throughout the books. Thorne has a chip on his shoulder for having been sent to the wall because of Ned, Janos is a lickspittle that totally screwed his own kingsguard brothers out of money when he was in KL (so, a known traitor), Yarwyck is one who sorta backs off during the LC election process, and we have Bowen Marsh with the in-your-face betrayal of "pomegranate" as the one who hastily carries out the plan.

  • A Storm of Swords - Samwell IV

Three-Finger Hobb had promised the brothers roast haunch of mammoth that night, maybe in hopes of cadging a few more votes. If that was his notion, he should have found a younger mammoth, Sam thought, as he pulled a string of gristle out from between his teeth. Sighing, he pushed the food away.
There would be another vote shortly, and the tensions in the air were thicker than the smoke. Cotter Pyke sat by the fire, surrounded by rangers from Eastwatch. Ser Denys Mallister was near the door with a smaller group of Shadow Tower men. Janos Slynt has the best place, Sam realized, halfway between the flames and the drafts. He was alarmed to see Bowen Marsh beside him, wan-faced and haggard, his head still wrapped in linen, but listening to all that Lord Janos had to say. When he pointed that out to his friends, Pyp said, "And look down there, that's Ser Alliser whispering with Othell Yarwyck."
  • A Storm of Swords - Tyrion IV

[Tywin] "There is no need. The Night's Watch is a pack of thieves, killers, and baseborn churls, but it occurs to me that they could prove otherwise, given proper discipline. If Mormont is indeed dead, the black brothers must choose a new Lord Commander."
Pycelle gave Tyrion a sly glance. "An excellent thought, my lord. I know the very man. Janos Slynt."
Tyrion liked that notion not at all. "The black brothers choose their own commander," he reminded them. "Lord Slynt is new to the Wall. I know, I sent him there. Why should they pick him over a dozen more senior men?"
"Because," his father said, in a tone that suggested Tyrion was quite the simpleton, "if they do not vote as they are told, their Wall will melt before it sees another man."
...
"In closing, ask Marsh to pass along His Grace's fondest regards to his faithful friend and servant, Lord Janos Slynt."
  • A Storm of Swords - Jon XII

"When has Stannis Baratheon ever had much good to say of anyone?" Ser Alliser's flinty voice was unmistakable. "If we let Stannis choose our Lord Commander, we become his bannermen in all but name. Tywin Lannister is not like to forget that, and you know it will be Lord Tywin who wins in the end. He's already beaten Stannis once, on the Blackwater."
"Lord Tywin favors Slynt," said Bowen Marsh, in a fretful, anxious voice. "I can show you his letter, Othell. 'Our faithful friend and servant,' he called him."
 
...and then a few lines later after conversation...
"What are you doing here, bastard?" Thorne asked.
"Bathing. But don't let me spoil your plotting." Jon climbed from the water, dried, dressed, and left them to conspire.
 

An upraised tail in a wolf means dominance and warning. Unfortunately, Jon does not heed this warning at the time, and shortly thereafter when he has Ghost locked up. But oh well, the story has to be told and certain things have to happen.

But no worries, someone is going to release Ghost very shortly ;).

None of this means they were not plotting, as the text quotes above show.

Also, Melisandre is said to be on her own mission (by the author) and her presence then absence in the Shieldhall during the reading should be addressed. Fire is a fickle thing and you never know which way the flames will go, but it appears we have just seen just where it lands. Remember, she keeps seeing Snow in her flames.

  • ASOS/SAM V: I have no place here, Sam thought anxiously, when her red eyes fell upon him. Someone had to help Maester Aemon up the steps. Don't look at me, I'm just the maester's steward. The others were contenders for the Old Bear's command, all but Bowen Marsh, who had withdrawn from the contest but remained castellan and Lord Steward. Sam did not understand why Melisandre should seem so interested in him.

I agree. Jon is still the "boy" at this stage, and it will take this attempt on his life that takes him into the dark to awaken his third eye is when we see the man be "born". This is Jon's "pyre" moment.

I chose to quote you because you might best "reflect" a varied political climate, and forced, and unforced, actions - that result in intended and unintended results. Or at least cover a number of angles. ;)

Consider Julius Caesar. Imagine the BW in a state of total decline (civil war in the Roman Republic is the comparison)

Jon is Ceasar crossing the Rubicon by letting in the Wildlings. He has his moments as Dictator, and then his "friends" lure him to his assassination - with Owen Marsh, ostensibly, an ally involved. The motivations of the conspirators against him are revanchest, and not at all practical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the OP - I think warging is a long shot, and not well supported by the text.

Giving an anonymous vote for Jon for Lord Commander, and being prepared to take an arrow for him are two different things. Although slicing Jon in front of Wun Wun, who has just been sliced himself, and who might have gathered that Jon was preventing people from attacking him - either they have not had time to contextualise their current situation, or they were prepared to die.

I suspect the former.  I suspect there have been previous assassination attempts that had been called off because something came up - like the heads of Black Jack and Hairy Hal and Garth, or Janos Slynt being  ordered to Greyguard... and so they had steeled themselves up to just DO it this time, no matter what.

Chett's prologue in Storm seems to me to be foreshadowing Jon's death, showing us how hard it is to keep a motley crew of stewards on task and ready to roll, to stop them quarrelling among each other, or forgetting their part, getting distracted, backing out, or turning them all in. Chett is foiled by Snow and Others, dies without even the satisfaction of slashing Sam's throat, or even seeing terror in Sam's eyes- which was not a high bar in normal circumstances. This  time the mutinous stewards have at least managed to slash a throat before being inundated by a series of unfortunate events.

My picks for the third and fourth knives are Left-hand Lew and Alf of Runnymudd. They were seated on the same bench as Bowen and Will in the shield hall, the last time we see them before they attack. Left-hand Lew is a survivor of the Fist and Craster's  (and possibly one of Chett's mutineers) although he is not mentioned by name until the second part of Storm. (That is, unless he is also Long Lew, the Stark/Tully guardsman, sent to the wall as a prisoner of war or broken man). Alf was the friend of Garth Greyfeather, he and his home-town first appeared in Dance. Will Whittlestick is first mentioned in the appendix of Feast for Crows, and as the appendices show the allegiances, life states, and ages that people are at the start of the current book, it hints that he arrived at the Wall sometime in the Storm of Swords timeline (ie. that he might have been a former goldcloak that Tyrion sent to the wall),  and also that GRRM felt the need for his named existence this century, not while he was writing Storm.There might have been more knives after Jon lost conciousness, too.

But it is Bowen Marsh that makes me suspect that this plot against Jon was prepared a long time ago. GRRM invites us to under-rate Bowen Marsh, through Mance, and Ed Tollett, and Cotter Pyke,  in just the same way as JonCon under-rates Homeless Harry, and in spite of his chasing the weeper all the way west of the shadow tower, and winning a bloody battle (strategically, playing to Mance's strengths, but he shows himself a competent and brave battle commander in this, and in the state in which he left Castle Black - lacking nothing but men, which they all knew were in short supply).

Bowen Marsh is the person who has been corresponding with the Lannisters, he is the one that knew that 'fondest regards for my faithful friend and servant' meant "Janos Slynt or Else". He was the psephologist that organised Janos Slynt's campaign - part of his purpose in leaving Castle Black was to give Janos the place of Castellan, to give the dimmer conservatives the notion that Janos was naturally their leader, and the brighter ones the chance to see the sky did not fall in, associating the new guy with incumbency and the status quo, which are by definition the preference of the uncertain conservative.) Just as he is the only one with the wherewithal to make Janos Acting Lord Commander, he is the only one really qualified to organise the 'else', too. He is deliberate man. He isn't a visionary, but he can do the math, and is a competent administrator. He is also a liar, or at least, a capable misrepresenter of the truth -there is more to the food stores that what Bowen Marsh has chosen to share with Jon, for example. Bowen Marsh has been at the wall a long time,  Othell Yarwyck and Three-Finger Hobb, men in critical roles on the wall, know he is a smart one and listen to what he says. 

He is a crony of Alliser Thorne, and now Alliser is in the rangers, the class of black brother that Bowen Marsh was least important to, and least regarded by, feel his influence. He has always been well regarded by the stewards. When I look back before Storm of Swords, I still see hints that Bowen Marsh is involved in assassination and power plays, but I think these hints look more like he is plotting to make Jeor Mormont Lord Commander (rather than Benjen Stark), and Ser Jaramey head ranger (rather than Benjen Stark), rather than foreshadowing Jon. (I've come upon this notion recently, and still have not got a good reason why Bowen Marsh would want to off Benjen with extreme prejudice in 297AD, after so many years working together. Head Rangers, like kings, have a much higher turnover since then, too. Which I'm pretty sure is not all down to Bowen Marsh.)

Bowen Marsh is the only one of them that seems to have above ordinary abilities (I guess that is partly because any recruit that shows a valued kind of skill or talent, ends up in the rangers or the builders. The stewards take the butter-churners and the snow-shovellers). Hatred of the Wildlings (and in particular the Weeper) seems a dependably fixed motive for him (and for Alf, after the weeper took out Garth's eyes).

Wick hears Bowen Marsh moan about the wildlings eating their food all day. He guards Cregan, who has a lot to say about Jon Snow being half-wildling (and it wouldn't surprise me if Cregan's howling was partly about pointing out Jon Snow is a warg). Wick guards the wildling corpses all night, wondering uneasily why Jon Snow would need the corpses guarded, and even more uneasily why Jon Snow would choose to leave the corpses unguarded tonight. I don't know what motive Left-hand Lew would have - maybe he just thought what his mates thought. Basically, I think what you call 'warging' is the endless, methodical patient influence of a man with plan, on the doughy minds of swing voters, where no impression stays fixed for long, and even their most certain resolutions are a mire of doubts and fears, when examined.

Apart from the Giant going ape (which might have been part of the plan - Bowen's cronies are mostly titled men, his currency is influence. His being a Lannister pawn would not make him less keen to know Stannis's men, many of whom have swung from Renly to Stannis already) and the cold rising (which I don't think Bowen took into account), immediately after Jon Snow's galvanising speech was a great time to strike. All the Night's Watch have been sorely provoked. Jon Snow has just sent them to Hardhome, where none of them want to go, on a suicide mission, when none of them want to die and become wights, to rescue wildlings that none of them want to save. And he won't be going with them because he has a gripe about some other bastard that is marrying his sister.

Ever since he became Lord Commander, Jon has become more distant and withdrawn from the men - he doesn't sit by the fire and eat with them (as Eddard used to, with his men). He cuts them unnecessarily (for instance when Mully offers "Summer friends will melt away like summer snows, but winter friends are friends forever.”, or when he hammers Iron Emmett while the guy is yielding). He has his reasons for becoming colder, sterner. He is trying to 'kill the boy'. But as he grows more distant from the men he commands, sending the ones he most likes and trusts the furthest away, he also grows closer to the wildlings. And the Red Woman. And Stannis. And less and less inclined to tolerate his brothers' ignorance and stupidity. The stewards don't need to be warged. They have motive enough.

If they were being warged, who are they being warged by? Bran regards himself as some kind of uber-warg for being able to warg Hodor. All the wildling wargs, who meet together and share knowledge, know that you don't warg human beings, and it would seem from Varamyr's experience that it is quite a feat to grab even a lungful of breath from another human being. Varamyr considered himself an uber-warg for being able to warg three wolves, and a shadowcat, and a bear, and an eagle, a feat that nobody he knew or knew of had equalled. He could also warg more than one beast at a time, and keep his human form concious, telling Mance what his eagle could see, while warging it. Bran's boy self loses conciousness when he wargs Summer or Hodor.

So if it was, say Borroq, it seems to me it's a pretty big step, from warging a single boar, to warging at least four human beings. And what does Borroq have against Jon Snow, anyway?

The Black brothers don't approve of warging, but then, they don't approve of sodomy either. Doesn't mean that some of them are not wargs. But I don't see anyone being a secret warg, or trying to deny they are a warg, except Jon. If it is true that a warg can always tell another warg, the only warg he has tipped us off to is Borroq, and Borroq didn't tip Jon off to anyone else.

There are plenty of forms of magic about Castle Black. Melisandre senses the old magic of the wall, that makes her own spells so amazing. There is a Godswood full of faces just on the Northern side. Doubtless there are spells the wildlings know, too. Jon notices the cold rooms getting colder in a way that defies physics, which makes me wonder what could be wandering the wormways. Apart from a couple of dead humans, and herds of dead animals. (If anyone does know exactly how many of what is in there, though, it would be Bowen Marsh and Wick Whittlestick).

It is pretty obvious that Jon hasn't been sweetsleeped- he didn't drink the mead, he left the hall and left it to Tormund.

What you attribute to Jon being spellbound, I attribute to Others. Jon finds it hard to draw his sword because it has frozen in his scabbard. The suddenly clumsy hand is the one he is in the habit of flexing to keep it's fingers limber since he burnt it, now stiffening as it freezes. We know the wind had risen (all that snow from the south blown against the wall) , and the dark has fallen, his wolf and Mormont's raven have been restive all day, (like Craster's old wife, they can feel it in their bones). Jon's wound is smoking because it is suddenly getting cold, so cold...

*

On 03/11/2017 at 2:29 AM, Widowmaker 811 said:

Jon was terminated because his actions were:

  1. Treason - he sent the wildling outlaw Mance Rayder to steal Arya from the Boltons.  This is an act of war that Jon started.
  2. Unjust - he killed Janos Slynt for a minor offense.  He later let Mance Rayder walk from much, much more horrible crimes and sent him on an illegal mission.
  3. Destructive to the Watch and the Realm - picking a fight with the ruling house of the north is not what you do if you want to prepare for the white walkers.  Jon put Arya's safety ahead of the safety of the realm.  
  4. Jon was about to commit an atrocity.  Jon was getting ready to lead an army of wildlings against the ruling noble house of the north and their men.  

Bowen Marsh and his crew were very much justified in removing Jon from office.  There was no other way to stop Jon from riding and escalating his war with the Boltons.  Marsh had no other choice but to do what they did and Jon was deserving of it.

Firing Jon from his job was something that needed to be done and Marsh did it in the only way available to him.

Oh dear. Where to start...

1/ Treason

Treason is betrayal your own country, usually by attempting to overthrow the legitimate monarch or disrupt the legitimate government.

Ramsay is not the legitimate monarch of Westeros, nor does he have any role in the government of Westeros. Ramsey is a person who got himself a Lordship by forcibly marrying a woman of large title, then (at the very least) locking her up until she died malnourished and before her time. He was able to get away with such flagrant bad behaviour because she had no sons or brothers whose duty was to defend her, and her King and bannerlord was preoccupied with war.

Roose Bolton is now the Warden of the North and therefore does have a role in King Tommen's government of Westeros, but Mance isn't stealing his wife. And if he was, it still woudn't be treason because stealing Roose's wife would not cast doubts on the legitimacy of the next Warden of the North (although it might cast doubts on the legitimacy of the next heir to the Dreadfort, which would have implications for Ramsey and the Freys).

Wife stealing is normally a 'domestic situation', only treasonous when the legitimacy of a governer is dependant on who his father was, and whether he was married to his (its usually his, not hers in the patriarchy) mother. So if Mance was intending to stealing Margaery, thereby casting doubt on the legitimacy of her progeny by Tommen, that would be treasonous. If Mance attempted to steal Cersei, that  might be treason because Ceresi is the acting head of the government of Westeros. But it might be an excuse to make Kevan regent instead. If Mance stole Jeyne Stark, to set his progeny up as Robb's, and himself as the Protector of the King in the North, that could be treason.

But there is no woman in the North that he could steal that would disrupt the royal line or the government of the nation. Even if Mance stole Sansa Lannister, it wouldn't interfere with the government of Westeros (and that would be true before Sansa lost all her patriarchal claims due to being an attainted traitor - poisoning a king is treason). The title of Warden of the North is customarily, not necessarily, inherited. Roose Bolton being the exception that proves the rule. In times of war, the King has the power to bestow it on strategically significant and competent generals like Bolton. Even in times of peace, a king might refuse to squander the title on the likes of Robyn Arryn.

While we are on the topic of patriarchal entitlement, lets not forget that Ramsey is only heir presumptive to his father. If Lady Bolton's child is a son, Roose can change his heir. Or Roose might decide the estates Ramsey has by marriage, and his name, are enough. That his younger son, with the untainted blood of Frey and flayer, can be Lord of the Dreadfort. Interrupting Ramsey's breeding is unlikely to interrupt even the Bolton line of succession, let alone the Royal one.

- he sent the wildling outlaw Mance Rayder to steal Arya from the Boltons. 

Melisandre charged Mance Rayder with heading out to Long Lake to find Jon Snow's sister. 

Melisandre had the authority to do this, because she is one of Stannis Baratheon's commanders, and  Stannis put Mance in the custody of Melisandre after capturing him as a prisoner of war.

Stannis intended to use Mance as an example of how he dealt with challenges to his rule:

Quote

"The law was plain; a deserter’s life was forfeit."

(ADwD, Ch.10 Jon III).

And Jon had plans for Mance as well:

Quote

“I would sooner take off Mance’s head myself. He was a man of the Night’s Watch, once. By rights, his life belongs to us."

(AFfC, Ch.05 Samwell I).

Maybe. But Eddard didn't return Gared to the Lord Commander for trial, Robb and Theon didn't stand on ceremony with Stiv and Wallen, either. And Mance was commanding an invasion on Stannis's kingdom, and styling himself the King beyond the Wall as he did (which would be treason, on the other side of the wall - that is the other thing about treason. It can only be committed by subjects and citizens of the nation attacked). Still, he does seem to be Stannis's by right. And Janos Slynt didn't press the Watch's claim when he was Acting Lord Commander, which makes it difficult for Jon to press the point later.

Melisandre may have over-reached her authority with the prisoner-swap, allowing Stannis to believe that he has tried and executed Mance.  Or she may not have. We see Stannis place a lot of trust in not only Melisandre, but Davos, and even Sallador Saan, who act on their King's behalf without their King's knowledge or consent, in ways their King wouldn't act himself, and would be unlikely to openly consent to, occasionally expresses his displeasure at, but without quite committing treason and being sacrificed to the Red God. Stannis isn't quite as liberal as Tommen when it comes to handing out cartes blanches, but he gives Melisandre a lot of leeway.

And she might have told him, sort of. At the time Jon was thinking of cutting off Mance's head himself, Sam shared a rumour:

Quote

"Pyp says that Lady Melisandre means to give him to the flames, to work some sorcery.”

(AFfC, Ch.05 Samwell I)

It seems unlikely that Pyp would have heard this rumour, and Stannis know nothing of it. Especially given her past form. But when it comes sacrifices involving Kings Blood, there is a whole lot of plausible deniability that Stannis would rather have than not. He would rather be in his bed, grinding his teeth in strange dreams, when she does stuff like that. When it comes to Melisandre's sorceries we see plenty of moments like this one: 

Quote

“With your leave, Sire, I will show Lord Snow back to his chambers.”
“Why? He knows the way.” Stannis waved them both away. “Do what you will."

(ADwD, Ch.03 Jon I)

So maybe Stannis gave Melisandre the permission to choose as she thought best. Not that Melisandre seems to need Stannis's permission anyway: she spends more time telling Stannis what his duty is than vise versa. Melisandre was very conscious of the role of individual choice in the Manichean body politic when she burnt Rattleshirt in the weirwood cage instead of Mance:

Quote

“We choose light or we choose darkness. We choose good or we choose evil. We choose the true god or the false.”

(ADwD, Ch.10 Jon III)

This was not where the choices ended. After not executing Mance, Melisandre, as Stannis's herald, preform a creepy citizenship ceremony/bar mitvah:

Quote

“OPEN THE GATES,” cried the serjeants. Men scrambled to obey. Sharpened stakes were wrenched from the ground, planks were dropped across deep ditches, and the stockade gates were thrown wide. ...
“Come,” urged Melisandre. “Come to the light … or run back to the darkness.” In the pit below her, the fire was crackling. “If you choose life, come to me.”

(ADwD, Ch.10 Jon III)

Mance, disguised as Rattleshirt, is the second wildling to be pardoned by King Stannis.

Quote

Sigorn was the first to kneel before the king... Next came Rattleshirt in clattering armor made of bones and boiled leather, his helm a giant’s skull...Jon did not believe for a moment that he would keep faith. He wondered what Val was feeling as she watched him kneel, forgiven.

Whether she acted with her King's authority or imposed on him, Melisandre had Stannis pardon Mance.  Poor Rattleshirt isn't even remembered as the one that never bent his knee.

Stannis brings the man to the next council he invites Jon to, offering him to Jon as a gift. Jon recoils inwardly, Melisandre explains the gift is in bond to her anyway, and Rattleshirt/Mance insists he won't take the black.

Quote

The ruby at her throat throbbed slowly, and Jon saw that the smaller stone on Rattleshirt’s wrist was brightening and darkening as well. “So long as he wears the gem he is bound to me, blood and soul,” the red priestess said. “This man will serve you faithfully. The flames do not lie, Lord Snow.”
Perhaps not, Jon thought, but you do.
“I’ll range for you, bastard,” Rattleshirt declared. “I’ll give you sage counsel or sing you pretty songs, as you prefer. I’ll even fight for you. Just don’t ask me to wear your cloak.”
You are not worthy of one, Jon thought

(ADwD, Ch.17 Jon IV)

Jon doesn't explicitly accept this gift, but after the henchmen have been dismissed, he haggles with Stannis to give him (as commander of the Night's Watch) command over all the former wildlings that are now subjects of Stannis.

The next Rattleshirt/Mance scene make it clear Rattleshirt/Mance takes his orders from Melisandre, not Jon:

Quote

“A girl in grey on a dying horse. Jon Snow’s sister.” Who else could it be? She was racing to him for protection, that much Melisandre had seen clearly. “I have seen her in my flames, but only once. We must win the lord commander’s trust, and the only way to do that is to save her.”

and underlines why this scheme can't be and isn't of Jon's making:

Quote

"If his sister needs saving, he’ll send his crows. I would.”
“He is not you. He made his vows and means to live by them. The Night’s Watch takes no part. But you are not Night’s Watch. You can do what he cannot.”

Jon did not send Mance out to rescue Arya. Jon did not send anyone out to rescue Arya, because vows. Melisandre wants to make an alliance with Jon by doing him a personal favour, that he cannot do for himself. And she employs Mance to do it.

Jon does control the facility that imprisons Mance, and does allow her to release Mance into the Gift. He allows horses and the spearwives, too. I'm not certain he could have stopped them if he didn't: Melisandre could take the horses from Selyse's Queensmen, and have Selyse demand Ed Tollett extract the spearwives from moles town, too. The prisoner was in her custody, even when housed in Jon's facility.

Jon doesn't send Mance to Winterfell, didn't even know he is going to Winterfell. No more did Melisandre. Her vision was about finding a girl who is fleeing on horseback, seeking protection from Jon Snow. They both thought Mance was heading off to Long Lake to meet her.

I'm surprised you neglected to mention that Jon sent Stannis to Winterfell with an army to rescue Arya:

Quote

Roose Bolton moves toward Winterfell with all his power, there to wed his bastard to your half sister. He must not be allowed to restore the castle to its former strength. We march against him. Arnolf Karstark and Mors Umber will join us. I will save your sister if I can, and find a better match for her than Ramsay Snow. You and your brothers must hold the Wall until I can return.

(ADwD, Ch.35 Jon VII)

Stannis demanding things that were his by rights (guestrights,mostly) from Jon before heading south, and later on Jon is sent a letter telling him that he is at Winterfell, trying to save Jon's sister, is analagous to Jon allowing Mance to leave Castle Black, and getting sent a letter informing him that Mance went to Winterfell later.

This is an act of war

Stannis marching an army to Winterfell in order to take it from the Boltons is an act of war. And you could reasonable argue that Jon virtually planned that campaign, as well as giving the army horses, provisions, armour and even weapons (spears, not swords). If not for Jon,  Stannis would have marched down the Kings Road with a wildling Army to the Dreadfort and death, if the Umbers hadn't killed them before that.

Admittedly, his planning  was given as a trade negotiation (Stannis's wildlings for Northmen), and local knowledge Stannis was free to ignore. But the route and the plan of attack and the dispositions of the Boltons made it almost inevitable that they would come to Winterfell before they got to the Dreadfort.

I can understand how bringing an army to the gates of Winterfell to rescue Arya from her marriage to Ramsey could be sufficient casus belli for Bolton and Baratheon both. Strangely, though, neither Stannis nor Roose identify this as Jon Snow's fight.

It is harder to understand how Mance's mission could be taken as an act of war. For a start, it was a covert mission. Their objective was to spirit Arya and themselves out of Winterfell, with nobody knowing where she was gone or how, until she was under the protection of her brother at Castle Black. They are seven, not an army, armed with harp and drum and tub and rope and knives. They are not coordinating with Stannis or anyone who does have an army. Their plan hinges on avoiding confrontation and on running away. Avoiding confrontation and running away is sometimes declared an act of war or a revolt by the side that puts an end to it, but historians tend to call such events massacres.  

That the author of the Pink Letter claims they were a rescue mission from Castle Black, is only because they stuffed up and got caught. Stannis inconveniently set a huge army up under the walls of Winterfell, which tightened security and restricting the comings and goings to the castle just as they were about to leave. Then they were snowed in. Someone inside the castle decided it was a good time to commit a few murders, and everyone else had nothing better to do than look very closely at everyone around them and figure out who done it. Holly forgot Frenya had the rope. None of that was part of the  plan. The plan Jon neither knew nor agreed to. On the plus side, Jeyne got away, at least as far as Stannis, so they achieved their objective. To an extent.

That the Pink Letter assumes Jon had Mance steal Arya, is one of the many odd things about. That it identifies Mance as Mance,  is odd too. Who, south of the wall, could identify Mance by sight? Stannis and his men saw Mance burn at Castle Black. I don't know how Ramsay even knows that Stannis claims to have burnt him, let alone why he would take the word of 'Mance' over Stannis. And he knows other things: that Val and Mance's son are at Castle Black, that Val is the 'Wildling Princess', that Dalla is dead, that Selyse and Shireen have not yet left for the Nightfort. I can't see where he gets his information from.

The whole purpose of the Pink letter seems to be to goad the Lord Commander into leading an attack on Winterfell. There would be no point in its bellicose threats if Jon had committed an act of war on Winterfell. And if Jon had already started a war on Winterfell, why send the letter to Castle Black? The metadata is a tacit concession that Ramsay knows the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch had not left his post, nor taken the Night's Watch south to attack Winterfell - which would be an act of war.

that Jon started

As the first three books make perfectly clear, Roose Bolton started this war (or started taking the North) around the time he married Walda Frey, and Ramsey married Lady Hornwood (by abducting her - just saying), when Joffrey still sat the Iron Throne.

Fake Arya was a Lannister notion - they are the ones that were pretending to have Arya at Kings Landing. But it was Bolton's idea to marry fArya to Ramsey, upgrade his hold on Winterfell from a 'by conquest' to a 'by marriage' and sealing his claim on the north with his own Stark in Winterfell. A deal that is sweetened for the Lannisters by the recollection that Sansa Lannister has a stronger claim to Winterfell than Arya Bolton, and by remembering that this way they can repudiate the real Arya if she turns up married to Willas Tyrell or Elmer Frey, or even if she just turns up. And they keep the option of repudiating fArya if the Boltons ever get out of hand.

Roose explains to Ramsey:

Quote

“Even ruined and broken, Winterfell remains Lady Arya’s home. What better place to wed her, bed her, and stake your claim? That is only half of it, however. We would be fools to march on Stannis. Let Stannis march on us. He is too cautious to come to Barrowton … but he must come to Winterfell. His clansmen will not abandon the daughter of their precious Ned to such as you. Stannis must march or lose them … and being the careful commander that he is, he will summon all his friends and allies when he marches. He will summon Arnolf Karstark.”

(ADwD, Ch.32 Reek III)

There it is. Before Roose had left Harrenhal, he had decided to use Arya, and the scandal of Ramsay's first marriage, to draw his enemies in the North to Winterfell for a wedding, to bind them to him or destroy them. He adjusted the plan to suit later developments, like Stannis becoming the commander of the clansmen and attacking the Ironmen at Deepwood Motte instead of the Umbers and the Dreadfort.

I don't doubt that Roose and Tywin both hoped to inveigle the 998th Lord Commander and the Night's Watch in this war as well. Being Arya's only living brother and knowing how Ramsay treats wives without brothers to defend them is a sore provocation. The Young Wolf would not have stayed put in the circumstances. The fact that Jon makes no move until the Pink Letter arrives, shows that he didn't start it. While being stabbed multiple times and perhaps dying is not good, there is a silver lining in that it has delayed his leaving for Winterfell. Winterfell was a trap, set to destroy the Night's Watch when they didn't vote for Janos Slynt. If I recall correctly, Tywin intended to open negotiations with Mance, too. I assume this means Roose is aware that Mance has value to him.

Which brings us to point two.

2/ Unjust

Janos Slynt was guilty as charged. When he was summoned to receive his orders at first light, he arrived after a late breakfast. Then when he was granted command of Greyguard, he refused, and when he was told that was an order, he compounded his insubordination by speaking disrespectfully to a senior officer, and kicking a chair. When the time came to fufill his orders, he remained by the fire in the common room instead. When he was given without penalty a second chance to fufil his orders, he kept up his insubordination and disrespect, only this time in front of all his brothers.

As Lord Commander, Jon Snow had the right to give those orders and to expect them to be obeyed. Making Slynt commander of Greyguard was not unreasonable nor dishonourable, it was a legal command. (In fact, it seems highly suspicious to me that Slynt took such deep and immediate offence to being commander of Greyguard, when it had been so generally expected that he would be relegated to the kitchens to cut up turnips.)

Slynt himself ensured there was no doubt as to whether or not his behaviour was insubordination. He was insubordinate and he treated both his orders and his commander with contempt. There is no doubt in the minds of his friends or his enemies that he committed the offence he was executed for.

he killed Janos Slynt for a minor offense.

Insubordination is a serious offence. In most military codes it is still a capital offence. Insubordination breaks the chain of command, preventing an army from achieving its objectives. It opens up opportunities for enemies to attack, corrupt, compromise, and to kill fellow soldiers or the civilians their objective was to protect.

Greyguard needs to be manned. A wildling army breached the wall there and attacked Castle Black from the Southern side, while Janos Slynt was Acting Lord Commander. On his watch. Janos owns as much, when he refuses the command.  Janos was also well qualified for the command. And Janos has already delayed his mission (and the thirty men he would take on it) for several hours, before Jon called him to answer for it.

While punishing insubordination with summary execution has become less popular since 1945, it was almost routine before 1918. Just last week the US commander in chief was tweeting that Sargent Bergdahl be executed as a traitor for leaving his post. The army recommended 14 years in military prison, and the court decided  dishonourable discharge and some hefty fines was sufficient for a person who spent five years malnourished and tortured in a Taliban prison in the meantime. Insubordination and contempt are still serious offenses, even by today's comparatively liberal terms.

He later let Mance Rayder walk from much, much more horrible crimes

Quote

“Now,” he said.
Ulmer of the Kingswood jammed his spear into the ground, unslung his bow, and slipped a black arrow from his quiver. Sweet Donnel Hill threw back his hood to do the same. Garth Greyfeather and Bearded Ben nocked shafts, bent their bows, loosed.
One arrow took Mance Rayder in the chest, one in the gut, one in the throat. The fourth struck one of the cage’s wooden bars, and quivered for an instant before catching fire. A woman’s sobs echoed off the Wall as the wildling king slid bonelessly to the floor of his cage, wreathed in fire.

(ADwD, Ch.10 Jon III)

Lord Commander Jon Snow had Mance Raydar shot by firing squad, for desertion. The man he let ride had been pardoned by Stannis and the Lord of Light, and was protected by Melisandre and her ruby.

and sent him

Melisandre sent him

on an illegal mission

The mission was to rescue a woman who was fleeing her marriage. A woman who wasn't the person she claimed to be, fleeing a brutal marriage, that was almost inevitably a death sentence.

Abduction is never respectable, but done right, there is nothing illegal about it. For example: Alys Karstark. She was betrothed by her Uncle Arnolf to his son, Cregan Karstark, and kept at the Karhold ready for her marriage when she escaped, most probably with the secret assistance of some servants (I deduce from the horse she rode and the speed with with which two of the men sent to hunt her down turned against Creagan, and also from how willing Alys was to forgive the women who betrayed her - I assume by preventing her leaving the Karhold until she had married her cousin). Note servants don't have guest-right, they are not guests.

She asked Jon for his protection, as her kins-man. Kinsmen were expected to protect and defend their female kin as a duty. The main reason Ramsay got away with Lady Hornwood was that she didn't have any kinsmen to protect her and advocate for her. (Kin, can't slay them, must protect them.) Jon has a personal duty to protect his kin when called on (if there is no bloodfeud between them) which is why Alys goes to him.

Alys ate the bread and salt of Castle Black, gaining the protection of guest-right for the time that she there, insurance against Jon using his vows as an excuse for avoiding family duties.

As it happened, he did not.  He took care to ensure Cregan was not able to claim guest-right of him:

Quote

Jon Snow met them on the kingsroad half a league south of Mole’s Town, before they could turn up at Castle Black, claim guest right, or call for parley

And one of Cregan's men goes one better, loosing an arrow on his party, thereby justifying his taking them as prisoners. Once this has been done, Jon points out to Cregan:

The betrothal to Cregan was not legally valid

Arnolf's claim to Lordship of the Karhold is not legally vaild

As a host, he has to ensure that Alys is protected not only when she is at Castle Black, but when she leaves, and as a kinsman, he has the duty to keep her safe, until she has the protection of a suitable husband or a more able  kinsman. (Cregan is ineligible for this duty, having killed two wives already, as Alys was careful to mention).

The solution Jon finds is to allow Alys to choose her own husband (as she can, because she is of age), and to suggest a match with the guy with the small army that could enforce her (or may be Harrion's) claim to the Karhold . She marries, and as she is a lady over the age of sixteen, she has the right to choose her own husband. Presumably they intended to leave for the Karhold shortly, if they had not already left. There are still issues that will need to be sorted out - Styr bent the knee to Stannis, Alys is a Stark loyalist to the core, but it is all perfectly legal. 

Jon plans to keep Cregan on ice until he takes the black, pointing out that Stannis will kill him. (Treason, conspiracy, hunting without a licence...can't imagine Stannis concerning himself overmuch about the matter of Alys's wedding or the minutiae of Northern succession laws, with so many violations of his own rights to burn Cregan over.)

Mance and the spearwives don't breech guestright because they are employed as servants in Winterfell, not guests. They perform the duties they are paid for dutifully. Jeyne also is not a guest. Helping her to escape is not a breach of guest right. It is disloyal to their employer and her husband, but not illegal.

Once she is in front of Stannis, Jeyne can put plenty of arguments that would invalidate her marriage. The fArya marriage seems to have been decreed by King Joffrey, who Stannis regards as an abomination that had no right to rule. She isn't Arya. If she was, she would only be eleven years old. Lady Ermensande shows that the King on the Iron throne can, apparently,  decree child marriages, although Alys mentions that they wait a little longer in the North "We were only waiting till I flowered to be wed,". This was the case with Sansa and Joffrey,too. I'm not sure what Stannis would make of this, other than that he woudn't recognise Ramsey having a legitimate claim on Winterfell. I'm not sure if he would accept Jeynes marriage as valid or not. The rites were performed in front of a heart tree, she said the vows, but she wasn't the person she claimed to be at the time (hmm...I wonder if her oath could mean that rArya was married to Ramsay, as for as the trees were concerned.)

Anyway, it isn't necessarily illegal to steal a bride. Especially when she has every reason to believe that her husband will flay her.

3/Destructive to the Watch

Since Jeyne left Kings Landing. recruitment to the wall has risen and fatalities have reduced. Ruins that had been empty for generations have been rebuilt and garrisoned, a lacklustre training program has been sharpened up, the gift is being repopulated. And this in spite of a full-scale wildling invasion that has affected both Castle Black and the Shadow Tower grievously, and a war in the Seven Kingdoms that has cost the Watch recruits and provisions from the South.

In the very short time that Jon Snow has been Lord Commander, the Watch has been strengthened, not destroyed. And Jon found funding from Braavos to strengthen it still more. 

Ramsay Snow's second marriage is no more destructive to the watch that his first; it hasn't cost the watch a man, or gained it one.

Jon Snow's election, and the consequent failure to elect Janos Slynt, has earned the Night's Watch Lannister enmity, but that enmity has taken the ambiguous form of Cersei sending a hundred new recruits to the wall (with the secret mission of assassinating Jon Snow). They seem to be destined to arrive too late. Jon's assassins were at the wall before Cersei sent her men, and we only know of Stannis's ships berthing at Eastwatch.

and the realm

Ramsey's marriage shows every sign of being as destructive to the realm as the last wedding Roose planned, but that would be the case whether or not Mance sang at it, and regardless of what happened to the bride. Roose planned it as prelude to a battle in the North, to weed out his friends and settle scores among the Northerners. It is a disastrous thing to be happening on the eve of winter, while the Others are massing their forces. But that is nothing to do with Jon and there is nothing Jon could do to change that one way or the other. The watch takes no part.

picking a fight

In the actions of Stannis and of Mance, it was not a fight Jon could pick. Jon advocated stealth to Stannis - avoiding the King's Road, not attacking the Dreadfort, going around the Boltons, sneaking to the Doors of Deepwood Motte and surprising the Ironborn.

Marching on Winterfell was Stannis's idea, that Roose had already thoroughly thought through last year.

Mance's action was never intended to be a fight, or to provoke one. The plan was to spirit Arya out without anyone finding out they were there or how they did it. Jon's role in this one was confined to giving the horses and allowing Mance and the spearwives to go. He managed to do his part without picking a fight with anyone.

with the ruling house of the north

Roose Bolton is Warden of the North, for now. But to say the Boltons are the ruling house of the North is a contentious claim. The Mormonts still recognise the Starks, the Umbers and the Karstarks are not absolutely recognising Bolton's rule, Deepwood Motte seem to be for Stannis now. Lord Manderely makes a show of supporting Roose that fools nobody, and with friends like him you don't need enemies. This lack of support is why it is necessary for the Boltons to marry into the Starks, as best they can. That is why they are at Winterfell, not the dreadfort. Because they know that the North still regard the Starks as their lawful rulers.

But Mance's mission is not about starting a fight with the ruling house of the North, it is about saving a girl from a monstrous husband who is after her claim. (As far as the North is concerned, Jon is more a member of the ruling house of the north than Ramsey). Mances action taken on behalf of Jon,  and Jon's own intention to set out south for Winterfell, are personal. They are to do with Arya being his sister, not with the Bolton's being the ruling house in the north. Stannis's intention of marching on Winterfell and marrying Arya to one of his men, on the other hand, is political. Stannis clearly is in a fight with the current ruling house of the North. And he is doing it to win the North to his rule. For Stannis Arya is a pretext, a side-issue.

not what you do if you want to prepare for the white walkers. To prepare for white walkers, the thing to do is...what Jon has been doing since he learnt of Arya leaving Kings Landing. Get as many living wildlings as you can find on your side rather than his, build up the wall, strengthen its defences.

Jon put Arya's saftey ahead of the realm by doing...everything he had to do to prepare for white walkers, and twice thinking to himself 'Hope Arya is alright. Not sure letting Mance out on his own recognisance was a good idea'

Jon was about to commit an atrocity. 

An attrocity - more like a duel. Remember it is Ramsay that said he was going to cut Jon's heart out. Jon means to make him answer for those words. It is unlikely Jon is coming down there just to allow Ramsay to keep his word and  cut out his bastard heart and eat it (the endless oddities of the Pink Letter. Since when did Ramsay become a cannibal? He's more likely to make Jon eat his own heart out.) still, his language is vauge, we are not sure what he intends to commit. The Pink letter is more specific, though.

Cannibalism is pretty atrocious.

Jon was getting ready to lead an army of wildlings

An army of nine, kneelers all..

against the ruling noble house of the north and their men.  

Against Ramsey Bolton solely. Ten swords is not enough to face Roose Bolton's army, or any army. They outnumber the Bastard's boys by three, until Jon dies.But they don't have the bastard's girls on their side. None of the Bastards boys are nobles. And whether you support King Tommen or King Stannis, the ruling Noble house is still BARATHEON.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Wild Bill said:

I chose to quote you because you might best "reflect" a varied political climate, and forced, and unforced, actions - that result in intended and unintended results. Or at least cover a number of angles. ;)

Thanks. I don't know if I am the best, but I think it is important to look at the story as a whole to make these huge plot determinations, rather than just the pink letter and the boring, generic stance of being a Stark/Jon hater. The books were written with a variety of "main" characters for a reason.

For instance, Tagganaro mentioned a few posts up that he thinks Bowen Marsh just stopped plotting after Jon was elected. That does not make any sense from a character consistency point, or from the story plot point. Things may have changed and developed along with the story progression (two of the conspirators are now gone, and one (Yarwyck) makes a weird change last minute, leaving Marsh to commit the crime) but that does not mean the mutiny plotting stopped.

Here we have one of the scenes where Marsh rejects the hospitality/guests right of Jon while Yarwyck accepts, and we readers know how the author uses this concept in the story. This particular scene was about ten chapters before the mutiny:

  • Hungry was not the word Jon would have used. Septon Cellador appeared confused and groggy and in dire need of some scales from the dragon that had flamed him, whilst First Builder Othell Yarwyck looked as if he had swallowed something he could not quite digest. Bowen Marsh was angry. Jon could see it in his eyes, the tightness around his mouth, the flush to those round cheeks. That red is not from cold. "Please sit," he said. "May I offer you food or drink?"
    "We broke our fast in the commons," said Marsh.
    "I could do with more." Yarwyck eased himself down onto a chair. "Good of you to offer."

And again Marsh refuses hospitality while Yarwyck accepts. In this same scene, Marsh is going against NW vows by protecting the realms of men, and even adding to army of undead:

  • It was the same again with Hardhome. Satin poured whilst Jon told them of his audience with the queen. Marsh listened attentively, ignoring the mulled wine, whilst Yarwyck drank one cup and then another. But no sooner had Jon finished than the Lord Steward said, "Her Grace is wise. Let them die."
     

And things continue, even if Marsh is biding his time by being "polite". Here Marsh is basically repeating what was being said back in ASOS, before Jon was elected LC and he finds them "plotting". Marsh wants to continue to meddle with the political affairs of the south:

  • Marsh hesitated. "Lord Snow, I am not one to bear tales, but there has been talk that you are becoming too … too friendly with Lord Stannis. Some even suggest that you are … a …"
    A rebel and a turncloak, aye, and a bastard and a warg as well. Janos Slynt might be gone, but his lies lingered. "I know what they say." Jon had heard the whispers, had seen men turn away when he crossed the yard. "What would they have me do, take up swords against Stannis and the wildlings both? His Grace has thrice the fighting men we do, and is our guest besides. The laws of hospitality protect him. And we owe him and his a debt."
    "Lord Stannis helped us when we needed help," Marsh said doggedly, "but he is still a rebel, and his cause is doomed. As doomed as we'll be if the Iron Throne marks us down as traitors. We must be certain that we do not choose the losing side."

And even though Marsh acts polite enough, Jon knows this truth:

  • A lord needed men about him he could rely upon for honest counsel. Marsh and Yarwyck were no lickspittles, and that was to the good … but they were seldom any help either. More and more, he found he knew what they would say before he asked them.

And readers have reason to believe/speculate that the pink letter was tampered with before Jon first receives it. And this tampering could mean that that Marsh and co. have manipulated the situation to carry out an attack:

  • Mully had not been wrong; the old steward was trembling, his face as pale as the snows outside. "I am being foolish, Lord Commander, but … this letter frightens me. See here?"
    Bastard, was the only word written outside the scroll. No Lord Snow or Jon Snow or Lord Commander. Simply Bastard. And the letter was sealed with a smear of hard pink wax. "You were right to come at once," Jon said. You were right to be afraid. He cracked the seal, flattened the parchment, and read.
    Your false king is dead, bastard. He and all his host were smashed in seven days of battle. I have his magic sword. Tell his red whore.
And there is still reason to speculate that Melisandre had her hand in this.
 
 
Quote

Consider Julius Caesar. Imagine the BW in a state of total decline (civil war in the Roman Republic is the comparison)

Jon is Ceasar crossing the Rubicon by letting in the Wildlings. He has his moments as Dictator, and then his "friends" lure him to his assassination - with Owen Marsh, ostensibly, an ally involved. The motivations of the conspirators against him are revanchest, and not at all practical.

I have seen this Julius Caesar comparison before, and while I do not disagree with those very loose interpretations for certain scenes, the author has said time and time again that he is not copy/pasting any one historic person/place/thing into his story. I have made a few Caesar comparisons myself. Whatever he uses as "inspiration" is always changed to fit his own style for his own purpose. There is never a full, direct one to one play of a character he writes that is actually someone from Shakespeare, Tolkien, Moorcock, etc. Here is a great interview where he explains just that. There is a difference between inspiration and ripping-off. What would be the point in reading a story he wrote if we already know the ending?

Also this:

  • The Wars of the Roses have always fascinated me, and certainly did influence A SONG OF ICE AND FIRE, but there's really no one-for-one character-for-character correspondence. I like to use history to flavor my fantasy, to add texture and versimillitude, but simply rewriting history with the names changed has no appeal for me. I prefer to reimagine it all, and take it in new and unexpected directions.

If you really want to know how this author uses history, myths, and lore in his own words, then read his older work. And then read it again and again. GRRM loves nothing more than his own themes. How he has decided  trees "behave", the haves .vs. the have-nots, written history by "maesters" is always twisted and incorrect, incest is always a failure, don't mess with the indigenous, being "trapped" somewhere while the world moves on without you, love triangles and unrequited love, mutinies caused by fear of the unknown, and mutinies that cause way more damage than they were trying to "prevent". These are just some of the recurring themes in nearly all of GRRM's older stories that we see played out again in ASOIAF. So, we can compare GRRM to any other author or historic event all we want, but that means nothing if you have no idea how this author works with them in his own mind.

If you want some good reading that pertains heavily to this Northern, Bolton .vs. Stark, the wall, the mutiny, the people and women around Jon that will protect him, etc, etc, etc, the read Nightlfyers, Fevre Dream, The Skin Trade, The Glass Flower, and Guardians. THIS is how George uses the themes that "inspire" him and all of these stories are near direct archetypes to this northern plotline... even down to the outfits, the black wall, the "fortresses", Targaryen/dragon madness, the use of ships, and even some direct dialogue- especially Nightflyers, Fevre Dream, and The Skin Trade. Hell even George's own admitted favorite movie (which he has the movie props in his home now), even that is very, very Night's Watch heavy themed. It is pretty awesome and I love discussing those stories if you ever want to in the future. I wish there was more GRRM discussion regarding his older stories. :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/5/2017 at 0:13 AM, Bowen Marsh said:

Dear Mr. Hoffman,

It is very kind of you to show interests in these matters.  It will be my pleasure to talk about what happened on that day when we had to execute Jon Snow.  After all, I am the only member of this forum who was present when it happened.  I was there at the meeting and heard Snow's revelations and intentions.  I was there when the execution took place.  Know that these words are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

It was never my intentions to punish Jon for his treason though he deserved an execution for those crimes.  The assassination was a desperate act.  My brothers and myself had no choice.  It was our responsibility to prevent our mad commander from committing an act so unspeakably vile.  He put together an army of wildlings for the purpose of attacking Lord Ramsay Bolton, the heir to the warden of the North.  This is an unprecedented act of aggression.  At no point in our long history has a sitting lord commander ever did anything so illegal as to attack the citizens that we are supposed to be protecting.  This is a clear violation of our oaths and vows.   Even the ancient Night's King drew the line at attacking the people of the north.

What Jon has been doing to get his sister away from Lord Ramsay was already an act of war.  Wildlings acting under Jon's orders went to Winterfell under the guise of friendship and murdered the servants of Lord Roose.  A violation of guest rights by even liberal standards.  He deserved to be removed from his office for this act alone and given an appointment with the chopping block.

Jon planned to further aggravate an already tense situation by making a direct assault on Lord Ramsay and his men.  It was our duty to prevent this atrocity from happening.  Jon was beyond reason by this time and his behavior in the past is an indication that he never valued our counsel nor took our concerns to heart.  Execution was the only way to stop him.

Neither I nor the brave men who followed me were warged nor under the influence of another.  What we did we did of our own free will and out of love and loyalty to the kingdom of Westeros and the watch.  It was a hard decision and one that we did not take pleasure in.  Jon just put us in a difficult situation.  Any blame should rest on his shoulders.  This is all his fault. 

I am proud of the men who helped me take down Jon Snow.  They are all men of honor who risked their lives to prevent war between our former lord commander and the Boltons.  We should make common cause and build an alliance with the warden of the north instead of trying to steal away the bride of his son.  Killing people we are supposed to protect is conduct that is not acceptable for a lord commander of the night's watch.  Our lives are fair trade to stop someone like that and take him down.

I do not have an explanation for Jon's inability to pull his sword out from its scabbard.  Perhaps we took him by surprise and maybe the ice had something to do with it.  Water on the blade will freeze and turn to ice causing a bind between metal and leather.  Perhaps the Gods are punishing him for the unjust execution of our sworn brother, Janos Slynt, and they caused the blade to bind. 

 

For the Watch - Bowen Marsh

You are awesome.  Bowen made the right decision to kill Jon.  What Jon was about to do cannot be allowed to happen.  It's wrong to take Arya away from Ramsay and wrong to interfere with the politics of the kingdom.  Making an enemy out of the Warden of the North can only harm the Night's Watch.  Conflict with anybody besides the white walker is just going to hurt and hinder the effort to stop them.  Jon made a bad choice.  That choice lead to treason against the Night Watch.  It led to angering Ramsay Bolton.  Finally, it led to Jon's well-deserved death.  Bowen and the crows could not in good conscience allow Jon to leave Castle Black and war with the Boltons, or anybody other than the White Walkers.  Bowen did the right thing and I find it ridiculous that some people are desperately trying to paint him as a villain.  It's not that simple, this story.  Jon was doing a great deal of harm.  His actions are the complete opposites of what he should be doing.  Jon had to be killed for the good of everyone.  He had gone erratic and loose.  The mission to take fake Arya away from her Bolton husband was an act of madness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Thanks. I don't know if I am the best, but I think it is important to look at the story as a whole to make these huge plot determinations, rather than just the pink letter and the boring, generic stance of being a Stark/Jon hater. The books were written with a variety of "main" characters for a reason.

...

If you want some good reading that pertains heavily to this Northern, Bolton .vs. Stark, the wall, the mutiny, the people and women around Jon that will protect him, etc, etc, etc, the read Nightlfyers, Fevre Dream, The Skin Trade, The Glass Flower, and Guardians. THIS is how George uses the themes that "inspire" him and all of these stories are near direct archetypes to this northern plotline... even down to the outfits, the black wall, the "fortresses", Targaryen/dragon madness, the use of ships, and even some direct dialogue- especially Nightflyers, Fevre Dream, and The Skin Trade. Hell even George's own admitted favorite movie (which he has the movie props in his home now), even that is very, very Night's Watch heavy themed. It is pretty awesome and I love discussing those stories if you ever want to in the future. I wish there was more GRRM discussion regarding his older stories. :cheers:

Somewhere between the bar stool and the floor we have the "bigger jigger";). I'm thinking Sandkings. ;)

I've cleverly excluded a lot of your post. But, I appreciate George's mining of history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Wild Bill said:

Somewhere between the bar stool and the floor we have the "bigger jigger";). I'm thinking Sandkings. ;)

I've cleverly excluded a lot of your post. But, I appreciate George's mining of history.

Sandkings is a perfect archetype for Daenerys plot in the story. She is the new Simon Kress. ;)

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...