Jump to content

A King in Hiding: Adding It All Up


Recommended Posts

I still cant understand why people seem to want Jon to become King: surely the point of his storyline so far is that there are things more important than who sits what throne. So much has been made of his vows that breaking them (more than he already has) would make him unworthy of any throne he tries to sit. Jon being the story's hero and taking the throne are not compatible options for GRRM.

As opposed to the many broken vows, promisses, oaths and even laws from all the people surrounding the Iron Throne? In that light, I can see your point. But then again, Ned's honor was the very same thing that was the death of not only him but Robert too. (and Robb, and Cat and...)

"You are an honest and honorable man, Lord Eddard. Ofttimes I forget that. I have met so few of them in my life.” He glanced around the cell. “When I see what honesty and honor have won you, I understand why.”

Ned Stark (...) “The king’s wine... did you question Lancel?”

“Oh, indeed. Cersei gave him the wineskins, and told him it was Robert’s favorite vintage.” The eunuch shrugged. “A hunter lives a perilous life. If the boar had not done for Robert, it would have been a fall from a horse, the bite of a wood adder, an arrow gone astray... the forest is the abbatoir of the gods. It was not wine that killed the king. It was your mercy.”

Yes, there may be a lot of indicators that he could or might become a king, he may end up heir to the north, he's probably a targ, etc. but all of these possibilities are things he has to discover about himself and then decline if he's going to keep the integrity necessary to any potential 'hero' character in ASoiaF,given its particular moral texture (thanks, Ned). Its my belief that these narrative possibilities are there and even anticipated in order to give more worth to his eventual choice to stay at his post and keep his vows (which would be even more poignant after what happens at the and of ADWD).

Yes but isn't he a hero to all the people beyond the wall? Isn't him already a hero to us readers that think that he really is doing what's best for the realm? Isn't he already a hero to Sansa (although she doens't know) when she wanted one hero to kill Slynt? And many other small examples written in this thread... So in a fact, he is already a hero, even after breaking some vows. What's one more, really?

As a slightly different addendum, I don't think Jon is the LC people here seem to think he cracked up to be, and I doubt he'd even make a good king. The dude didn't exactly end up being particularly popular with his brothers, getting stabbed by your men might be an indicator that you're not a very good leader, regardless of whether your chices were actually right or not. He always seems aware of the fact that he's ostracising his brothers with every decision he makes, but never seems to give that much of a damn.

He got stabbed by 4 of 1000? Yes I know the NW is scattered on all the castles, but do you know how many are there in Castle Black? Do you know how many do actually think he is a good leader? About the ostracising... Well just how many more (yes, please remember that he did give quite a few) explanations do you think the LC should give to the men he commands?

In the end, I want to remind you: Jon is learning. Nobody can deny that seeing how crude he was in AGOT and he first came to the NW, after the feast for Robert, when he left the room crying. I can even agree that is not ready to be king... Not yet!

Edit: I'm sorry to have forgotten good manners. Welcome to the forum!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mormont is talking to Jon about the differences between Jon's future and Robb's future now that he has been declared king. See below

Mormant says: "You'll have no wife, nor will you ever hold a child of your own blood in your arms. Robb will rule, you will serve. Men will call you a crow. Him they'll call Your Grace. Singers will praise every little thing he does, while your greatest deeds all go unsung. Tell me that none of this troubles you, Jon ......and I'll name you a liar, and know that I have the truth of it."

Jon drew himself up, taut as a bowstring, "And if it did trouble me, what might I do, bastard as I am?" (What does being a bastard have to do with what Jon might contemplate doing?)

Mormont's reply: " What will you do?" Mormont asked. "Bastard as you are?" (Why does Martin write Mormont's response with a question as to Jon's bastardy???

I believe George wrote these two lines this way with the question marks as to a hint that Jon Snow is NOT a bastard.

What happened to the like button???? I loved that one, Lady Arya's song!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, fist time poster but really interested in this debate.

I still cant understand why people seem to want Jon to become King: surely the point of his storyline so far is that there are things more important than who sits what throne. So much has been made of his vows that breaking them (more than he already has) would make him unworthy of any throne he tries to sit. Jon being the story's hero and taking the throne are not compatible options for GRRM.

Yes, there may be a lot of indicators that he could or might become a king, he may end up heir to the north, he's probably a targ, etc. but all of these possibilities are things he has to discover about himself and then decline if he's going to keep the integrity necessary to any potential 'hero' character in ASoiaF,given its particular moral texture (thanks, Ned). Its my belief that these narrative possibilities are there and even anticipated in order to give more worth to his eventual choice to stay at his post and keep his vows (which would be even more poignant after what happens at the and of ADWD).

As a slightly different addendum, I don't think Jon is the LC people here seem to think he cracked up to be, and I doubt he'd even make a good king. The dude didn't exactly end up being particularly popular with his brothers, getting stabbed by your men might be an indicator that you're not a very good leader, regardless of whether your chices were actually right or not. He always seems aware of the fact that he's ostracising his brothers with every decision he makes, but never seems to give that much of a damn.

Welcome!

I think for many of us the reasons behind Jon's possibility of becoming a King isn't so much in the possibility itself, but the reasons behind it. Most of us certainly don't expect him to sit the IT on account of R+L=J, to put an example.

For me something that ADWD left very clear is that Jon is probably the one character with the most pragmatic and out of the box ideas on how to approach a possible invasion by the Others but is very much restricted by the parameters of the LC job to address things to the best of his potential. The position of LC restricts and encumbers him when it should be an asset. On the other hand a position similar to King of winter/King of the North will give him with better resources and, what's more important, the independence of action he needs to make decisions that best ensure the survival of the realm. And what's more Jon is uniquely positioned to fit this shoes having been named heir by the former King in the North, earned the respect and support of the wildings (the people with best experience so far in fighting the Others!) and even that of Stannis Baratheon. About the watch, we don't know the exact number of the conspirators or the level of premeditation, but it is very clear that Jon had his fair share of supporters else they would have just killed him before he allowed the wildings through the Wall and changed things forever.

Yes, Jon's story shows that there are more important things than who sits what throne as you point out, but another major theme in his arch (and others such as Jaime and even Brienne) is that an oath isn't everything; that sometimes the price for keeping it is too high and that there are things far more important than the values of an institution, in this case the NW, or the vanity and conventionality of keeping to an oath if keeping it goes in detriment to more important values or human life itself. After all, the Halfhand said it best: Our honor means no more than our lives as long as the realm is safe, a lesson Jon took to heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sophia Allard & Winterfellian

​Hey guys, thanks so much for the warm welcome, you both make really interesting points. I guess my main issue with seeing Jon on any throne comes back to the point of honour. As you both point out, honour (or at least the arbitrary kind of honour which obstructs moral action) seems to be relatively out the window at this point- oaths aren't everything, as you say. However, I still think the rules are slightly different for Ned, Robb and Jon. Whilst we dont expect, say, Tyrion, Stannis or Dany to live up to these rules exactly, the reader brings different expectations to Ned and the fully mature characters he raised.

In terms of narrative justice, these three are expected to live up to a higher standard; the second their codes of honour are breeched, we know they're going to pay for it. Whilst its generally accepted that Ned dies because of his honour, for me the really tragic thing about his death for me is that he died forsaking his honour. He was always going to die for honour, but if he stuck to his code until the end he could have taken Joffrey down with him by revealing the truth. Instead he died legitimising Joff's claim (if he had been a better player of the game, he may have realised that whilst they were threatening his daughters' lives, the Lannisters actually needed them alive, so he didn't need to lie for their safety). His death (or at least the tragic nature of his death) to me looks like a kind of punishment for finally forsaking his honour. Likewise with Robb (Red wedding doesn't need explaining) and Jon- the second he decides to use his power as LC in a way not strictly condoned by his oath, you just know he's going to get punished. Theon (the other mature character raised by Ned and expected to conform live up to his example) very clearly forgoes his honour, is also 'killed' in some way: i.e. 'theon' is dead and replaced by reek and is clearly being punished for his crimes according to a certain narrative logic.

I know Jon has now learned that his oath cannot be seen in terms of black and white, chiefly through his 'undercover' role amongst the wildings. However, as opposed to these relatively minor transgressions, if Jon were to become King it would constitute a kind of unforgivable breach in terms of the codes we expect him to live by. If he ever took a throne he would be categorically and deliberately ignoring his vows, not just struggling with the complexities of keeping them, in short his identity would no longer be defined by being a member of the NW, and for me that just doesn't look like an option for Jon unless he wants to get sliced up (like Ned and Robb) or worse (like Theon).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome!

I think for many of us the reasons behind Jon's possibility of becoming a King isn't so much in the possibility itself, but the reasons behind it. Most of us certainly don't expect him to sit the IT on account of R+L=J, to put an example.

For me something that ADWD left very clear is that Jon is probably the one character with the most pragmatic and out of the box ideas on how to approach a possible invasion by the Others but is very much restricted by the parameters of the LC job to address things to the best of his potential. The position of LC restricts and encumbers him when it should be an asset. On the other hand a position similar to King of winter/King of the North will give him with better resources and, what's more important, the independence of action he needs to make decisions that best ensure the survival of the realm. And what's more Jon is uniquely positioned to fit this shoes having been named heir by the former King in the North, earned the respect and support of the wildings (the people with best experience so far in fighting the Others!) and even that of Stannis Baratheon. About the watch, we don't know the exact number of the conspirators or the level of premeditation, but it is very clear that Jon had his fair share of supporters else they would have just killed him before he allowed the wildings through the Wall and changed things forever.

Yes, Jon's story shows that there are more important things than who sits what throne as you point out, but another major theme in his arch (and others such as Jaime and even Brienne) is that an oath isn't everything; that sometimes the price for keeping it is too high and that there are things far more important than the values of an institution, in this case the NW, or the vanity and conventionality of keeping to an oath if keeping it goes in detriment to more important values or human life itself. After all, the Halfhand said it best: Our honor means no more than our lives as long as the realm is safe, a lesson Jon took to heart.

:agree:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snip

You're welcome!

I see your point but I agree to a certain extent only. Of the examples you wrote I feel the most applicable to Jon's case is Ned. While there's a certain tragedy in Ned foregoing his honor at the end, the reason why he chose to do this is key to understand his motivations. Political naivete aside Ned thought that Sansa's life was in danger. He had to make a choice and decide what was more important- his daughter's life or his own honor. Convinced as he was of the risk to Sansa's life choosing the to retain his honor would have been an act of selfishness. By relinquishing some abstract notion so important to him in favor of Sansa Ned truly live up to these high standards you mentioned in your post. Yes Ned, forsakes his honor but it wasn't for riches, glory or even vanity itself but because he saw Sansa's life as something far more valuable. Ned wasn't thinking in his own benefit, but in the good of another. To me at least this is THE high moral standard to which I expect Jon to act.

King or not if Jon breaks his vows for a cause bigger than himself then I would applaud him, not condemn him. But that's just me.

Robb and Theon, well the situation isn't quite the same. Robb broke a promise that put his own kingdom and subjects in danger for the honor of some girl and don't even get me started on Theon. The point is that none of them were acting on behalf of the greater good, but for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

King or not if Jon breaks his vows for a cause bigger than himself then I would applaud him, not condemn him. But that's just me.

:agree: How wouldn't I when it was so beautifully put? :drunk:

Frequently heroes are judged small-mindedly for what they did and not for why they did it. Plus I've always had this nagging voice in my head that says he never broke the "original" NW vows. although he said the new version of it..

Anyway... Coming back to the OP so that my post doesn't go in vain:

The magister bowed slightly. “I take you for a king. Kings lack the caution of common men"

To factor in your point that Jon is a bad LC, Kinginthenorth1, :cool4:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question of the validity and the morality of the oaths various characters have taken ,in the circumstances they find themselves in , is frequently repeated , as Winterfellian points out.. but there's an extra element in Jon's case.

Jamie and Brienne's oaths , e.g. ,were given to a person or an office ( King) , to protect ,to serve to carry out orders to their last breath, etc. and we see how utterly it can all deteriorate if the person they've sworn to becomes corrupt , goes mad , or has less than moral or honourable intentions. All of the parts of the NW oath that relate to the political structure of the 7 Kingdoms are subject to the same problems , and they have in fact ,already been trampled by those receiving the benefit of the oath when the story opens.

KL and most of the lords have neglected the watch and failed to keep up what were clearly understood to be their return responsibilities. At some point in history there must have been a statement of what the NW could expect in return for taking no wives , fathering no children ,wearing no crowns , etc.(We don't see those to the south agonizing over failing their duties to the watch.)

That's the political part of the oath that Jon has to wrestle with..but with the whole political structure disintegrating and being corrupted , it has to be reevaluated.

But the core section of the NW vows ( I am the sword in the darkness .I am the watcher on the walls...etc.) appears to be bound up with the magic of the wall, itself. And it's this undertaking that the brother of the NW must remain true to. Jon, and any NW brother has spoken the whole oath, but all that matters to the Black Gate is that core section ( since that's all Sam recites ) .I'll bet that section is all that matters to the magic binding the wall and the NW. Countless brothers have fathered children over the centuries, and Mance was even taken in and reared by the watch. The wall still stands.

So it seems to me a NW brother could be on the wall , in WF, or on any other walls and as long as he's continuing to uphold those undertakings, in concert with the NW as a whole..it won't threaten the integrity of the struggle against the others , children or no , crown or no.

In the struggles between men , all the NW can do is try to hold on to their autonomy, and work out a new pact or understanding relative to whatever the new political structure will be. Whatever position Jon winds up holding will matter far more than what it's called ( Titles, titles) ;) ... and won't change his commitment to those core principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

snip

I see what you're saying, bemused, but I don't think it matters what matters to the Wall and it's magic - your vows are what you swore to, the words you said. He chose to say them, after that he chose to break them. Looking at it the humane way, noone can blame Jon for feeling like an oathbreaker, and other people viewing him as such.

But I do agree that absolution is not a good standing ground, and that's a major theme in the series. Stretching from the kingslayer to Melisandre saying that if an onion is half-rotten, then it's a rotten onion, and a few chapters later a NW brother cutting the rotten half of an onion and eating the perfectly good other half.

Probably the major point of the whole series is that the laws of men are absolute and they don't really work or provide a solid ground or solution. But they are needed because of the nature of people, who are exactly the opposite - non-absolute and diverse. And whilst a sworn brother of the NW who cooks eggs and has not deserted is technically as chivalrous and honorable as Arthur Dayne, it's when something larger than life comes about - this separates the boys from the men (in that sense). This applies to Jon, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon is obviously caught between the proverbial rock and hard place. But as I don't think he's to be blamed for doing as he does , neither do I think Marsh and the other attackers can be blamed exactly, for thinking as they do. ( Doing as they do is another matter ) They are men whose reason is limited due to various causes. ( Stupidity, gullibility, superstition , grief...whatever.) However , I think they're wrong to get hung up on details , to adhere to a strict interpretation of the oath , even though I can see why they do. If Marsh's interpretation and the tactics that he proposes in agreement with his interpretation were to be followed , I think it would lead to certain disaster , and he's not willing to entertain any compromises to his ideas.

As to Jon, I don't think he actually feels like an oathbreaker by the time we get to his response to the pink letter. I think he's perhaps undecided , still wrestling with the pros and cons... He certainly knows some others will see him as an oathbreaker, and will accuse him of it. Marsh has already accused him of treason over letting wildlings through the wall and his words come into Jon's mind in the sheild hall. This is why he decides not to take any NW with him , and tells them so to try to prevent a rift in the NW , insofar as he can. When he thinks " If this is oathbreaking.. "etc. shows his awareness of the situation. When he formulates his plan, he knows exactly what critique will be leveled against him, yet he must try to nullify the letter's threat-by-extension to the NW .

The books show us repeatedly that adherence to chivalrous or honourable ideals is noble only when in service to an honourable or just person or cause..in ADWD we see yet another oath taker , Barristan , suffering guilt and regret over some of the blood he shed in service to those he had sworn to. ..this is even stretched to the extent of him thinking that his actions contributed to the destruction of people who would have been better rulers than the one he served. So.. in keeping faith with a set of words , he brought hardship to the realm and the general good. In the case of oaths, the words are not merely only as good as the one speaking them, but also only as good as the one they're spoken to.

And I think that when a person has sworn to something without realizing the ramifications ( because the ramifications were not dreamed of in their philosophy, or anyone else's) and when it appears that they may do more harm by adhering to their original understanding of the oath than by breaking it , it counts .. and everyone who took that oath should be questioning it.

But the part that is bound to the magic is still appropriate , and moreso than has been understood for a long time. It may be very essential to the survival of the species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Kings are a rare sight in the north." Robert snorted "More likely they were hiding under the snow. Snow, Ned!"

This is brilliant. I'm surprised it's been over-looked; I'm mid way through my re-read of AGoT and completely missed it.

Really do need to pay attention to the detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

` I didn't read every post so I apologize if this has been brought up.

But regarding Robb's will, we know that Jon is legitimized, but it doesn't necessarily mean that he skips Bran and Rickon.

Wouldn't Robb have included some wording that makes Jon king if there is no other legitimate heir? If only to placate Catelyn when she raised objections about Jon and the possibility that he might usurp the crown from Robb's brothers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

` I didn't read every post so I apologize if this has been brought up.

But regarding Robb's will, we know that Jon is legitimized, but it doesn't necessarily mean that he skips Bran and Rickon.

Wouldn't Robb have included some wording that makes Jon king if there is no other legitimate heir? If only to placate Catelyn when she raised objections about Jon and the possibility that he might usurp the crown from Robb's brothers?

Why would he feel the need to do that, he has been informed that Bran and Rickon are dead. Winterfell has been sadked, Theon has betrayed him, the Ironborn are trying to take the western coast of the North. Why would he think Theon would spare Bran and Rickon when he has so badly betrayed him already.

The will did three things, maybe four.

1) He disinherited Sansa in the will to make sure the Lannisters could not get their hands on Winterfell through her marriage to Tyrion.

2) he provided that a child of his body would be his heir if such a child existed.

3 & 4) He legitimizes Jon and names him his heir if no child of his body exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ned's dream about the ToJ:

Across his white-enameled helm, the black bat of his House spread its wings.

The bat could be a metaphor for Jon. The bat emerges from the cave after the sun sets. Jon emerges from the womb after the sun has set for the Targaryens.

No, Ned is talking about Oswell Whent, a member of the Kingsguard that was at the tower of joy, the black bat is the sigil of house Whent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would he feel the need to do that, he has been informed that Bran and Rickon are dead. Winterfell has been sadked, Theon has betrayed him, the Ironborn are trying to take the western coast of the North. Why would he think Theon would spare Bran and Rickon when he has so badly betrayed him already.

The will did three things, maybe four.

1) He disinherited Sansa in the will to make sure the Lannisters could not get their hands on Winterfell through her marriage to Tyrion.

2) he provided that a child of his body would be his heir if such a child existed.

3 & 4) He legitimizes Jon and names him his heir if no child of his body exists.

My post tells you why he would feel the need to do that. To placate Catelyn and ease her fears that somehow Jon would usurp his trueborn siblings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My post tells you why he would feel the need to do that. To placate Catelyn and ease her fears that somehow Jon would usurp his trueborn siblings.

If he were interested in placating his mother he never would have named Jon his heir in the first place. She was willing to go to distant cousins who had very likely never even set foot in the North rather than have him name Jon. Robb wasn't the best diplomat, if you didn't notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My post tells you why he would feel the need to do that. To placate Catelyn and ease her fears that somehow Jon would usurp his trueborn siblings.

The trueborn siblings that everyone at that point thinks are dead?

If he were interested in placating his mother he never would have named Jon his heir in the first place. She was willing to go to distant cousins who had very likely never even set foot in the North rather than have him name Jon. Robb wasn't the best diplomat, if you didn't notice.

Exactly. If Robb's going to defy his mother by naming Jon his heir, he isn't going to pussyfoot around on the wording.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he were interested in placating his mother he never would have named Jon his heir in the first place. She was willing to go to distant cousins who had very likely never even set foot in the North rather than have him name Jon. Robb wasn't the best diplomat, if you didn't notice.

The trueborn siblings that everyone at that point thinks are dead?

Exactly. If Robb's going to defy his mother by naming Jon his heir, he isn't going to pussyfoot around on the wording.

After the Theon fiasco I can see him doing it just to cover all the bases. Either way, once I get my hands on the will I'll be sure to let you know

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...