The Jon Snow Reread Project II AGOT-ACOK

[Ser Pollo Loco]

I don't think he's ever mentioned again.

He's hanging out with Benjen (not a joke)

[Lummel]

Thanks to everybody for sharig wha they like about these chapters! Keep it coming!

I think Lady Arya is talking about this blog.

It shows the power of a good presentation (nice layout and good pictures), sadly the author isn´t just guessing about ASoIaF but also making some very daring speculations about the meaning of norse myths without telling us so. By comparison I preferred BrosbeforeSnows´ thread (pruned away), since he gave at least a nice intro how one should be carefull to equate the story one to one with mythology before doing exactly that.

Ha, I remember that thread :laugh:

...the ambiance is perfection. I believe that GRRM has also published several horror stories and his expertise shows...

The ambiance is something that stands out in these chapters, particularly in contrast to AGOT. GRRM is certanly interesting in mood and tone and having us share the experience of the POV character.

Thank you Lykos for posting the blog link. I still do not know how to do that. The only good thing for me that came from that blog was it forced me to go read up on Norse mythology to see how the poster arrived at his conclusions. I disagree with some of his predictions but the site is very well laid out and well written. After the Red Wedding and the beheading of Ned I am at the point of paranoid when it comes to my favorite characters! I love the north and the Starks, its hard to see them continually being on the losing end in the story. Jon Snow as Surtr just did not make my day!

ok. Two ways. One very basic: you copy the text from the web address bar and paste it in to your post

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%BA_Chulainn

Second way: you type some text then highlight it and press the chain symbol to the right of the bullet point button. That brings up a dialogue to make a neat link, you then paste the web address info into that dialogue box and it is nicely hidden behind some text like so

some people think that Jon's story is based on CuChulainn's

I wasn't convinced but some people in Heresy were quite taken by it at one time. Perhaps it will appeal to some of you as well. I would be very surprised if GRRM wasn't dipping in to various mythologies and taking bits and pieces. Like Julian Rayne I don't see GRRM just reproducing an entire myth or history with just the names changed and I'm not sure if Ragnorak really gets us very far - everybody divided into two camps, they have a big old fight and the world ends - well OK, but it doesn't really add any insight though!

Glad I could be of help Lummel. Great write up!

So, to add to my Qhorin as mystical guide theory, this exchange here really stuck out for me:

(bold is my my emphasis)

This calls to mind an exchange between Yoda and Luke Skywalker when Luke is training with Yoda on Degobah and trying to raise his ship from the water where it crashed. Luke says, "I'll try" and Yoda says, "No. Do or do not. There is no try." (I hope I'm remembering this correctly as it's been a while since I've seen it but I was a big Star Wars geek when I was younger so I think this is correct). This is almost identical advice.

Also, Jon's eating the horse meat is similar to when Dany had to eat the horse blood and meat as part of her initiation with the Dothraki. She knew she could not throw it up and Jon willfully keeps it down too. Also, the silver references suggest a commonality with Dany too and Jon refers to Qhorin's long grey braid swinging slowly with the motion of the horse which reminds me of Drogo's braid.

"The tumbling waters shone silver in the moonlight." Both sides of Jon's heritage (assuming R+L=J) are in force here.

ETA So we know that Ebben, Dalbridge and Qhorin don't make it back to Mormont but what about Stone Snake? I can't remember if we ever find out what happened to him.

'there is no but' is interesting because it comes after Jon acknowleding that the words change a man, yet he still wants to prevaricate and negiotiate. Qhorin sees the nature of the oath as absolute.

This is an interesting question if we compare it with the kingsguard oath and Jaime's situation - there it is clear that the oath has to be taken lightly and considered in the light of circumstances if one is to maintain moral integrity and generally do the right thing. So where do we stand? Clearly Westeros as a society needs people to stand by oaths, promises, guest right and custom because there is no law or law enforcement capable of replacing them, so who is right and where are the limits of this? If turning cloak is justifiable by appealing to the greater good of the oath what isn't justifiable? (I wasn't really wearing a crown, holding lands, having children, it was all for the greater good of the oath...!) Hmm.

[Maia]

Lummel, I greatly appreciated your write-up and all the insightful contributions by the re-read regulars. I also really like this chapter, despite not being a particular fan of Jon's - he is too stereotypical a hero for me and... there is that other thing that bothers me about him and is bound to inflame the spirits, as it were. The chapter is wonderfully moody and foreboding and gives valuable insight into the world beyond the Wall, Ideology of dedicated NW members and personality of Qhorin.

There is just little for me to add and some of it is bound to be contraversial, so I was hesitating to bring it up, but here goes:

Qhorin's "ruby necklace" = "Rhaegar's rubies"? A chain of sacrifices that is needed to forge Jon into what/who he must become?

And, of course, the fact that despite all the convincing from Qhorin, Jon really didn't have a choice re: killing him, only what to do next. Qhorin took away that choice by atttacking so aggressively that Jon reflexively had to defend himself with all his might, and then Ghost attacked Qhorin and made him stumble, so Jon killed him without really meaning to.

Now re: "bloody hands" metaphor, Jon escapes with "clean hands" here, relatively. All the planning and choices have been already made, the only option he had was to waste that sacrifice.

This is the second time something like this happens to him - the first was his escape, where he did make the "wrong" decision, but was stopped before carrying it out.

Now, I don't have a problem with it here, yet. But when this motive will re-appear again in ASoS, well, that will be another matter, at least as far as I am concerned.

[Treemaster]

ETA - any other likes or dislikes about this chapter or those ACOK - particularly from you lurkers, you've got to earn your right to lurk with the odd comment and opinion you know ;) .

From a lurker relying on this (and other) threads to procrastinate at work:

If I'm quiet, it's because I am in awe of all of you. Ragnorak, I am a contrarian, and I usually disagree with pretty much everything anyone says about anything -- or at least my instinct is to do so -- and yet I find myself agreeing with almost every word you write. Really quite scary.

To all, please keep up the good work and I promise I'll say more if I think I have anything to contribute.

[Winterfellian]

And, of course, the fact that despite all the convincing from Qhorin, Jon really didn't have a choice re: killing him, only what to do next. Qhorin took away that choice by atttacking so aggressively that Jon reflexively had to defend himself with all his might, and then Ghost attacked Qhorin and made him stumble, so Jon killed him without really meaning to.

Now re: "bloody hands" metaphor, Jon escapes with "clean hands" here, relatively. All the planning and choices have been already made, the only option he had was to waste that sacrifice.

This is the second time something like this happens to him - the first was his escape, where he did make the "wrong" decision, but was stopped before carrying it out.

Now, I don't have a problem with it here, yet. But when this motive will re-appear again in ASoS, well, that will be another matter, at least as far as I am concerned.

I understand what you are saying and it is a criticism that I have seen time and time again applied to Jon; without many merits in my opinion. I think the problem lies in the fact that as a reader we might be too focused in the situation Jon is escaping from and don't probe too deeply or step back enough to look at the full picture in these circumstances. By doing so we might only see Jon getting away with it, so to speak, and don’t make the effort to try to connect Jon’s actions that lead up to said circumstance. I will address Qhorin’s sacrifice later on, but first I will like to interject something about the first case you mentioned, Jon’s attempt to desert back in AGOT.

Yes, Jon is conveniently saved from a certain detection and further execution. But what lead up to this? What are the circumstances that set in motion the boys' decision to go after him and bring him back? In my opinion, the answer is Jon’s own actions. The boys who risked themselves to go after him were the same brutes and bullies without any trace of honor (as per Jon’s description of them) who tried to beat him up at the start of AGOT. Where lays the difference then? In Jon’s own change of attitude regarding them; a change that came from within him, after acknowledging the wise counsel of Donal Noye’s speech of course. If he had been the same narrow minded and entitled boy he was when he first got to the NW I don’t think that any of these boys would have trouble themselves with trying to get him back to CB. They probably would have been standing first line during Jon’s execution next to Sir Allyser trying to decide who would get his boots. Not to mention that if Jon hadn’t taken the time and effort to help and befriend Sam for no other reason that because it was the right thing to do, there wouldn’t have been anyone to sound the alarm after his escape.

So yes, Jon is “saved” from making the wrong choice, but by the persons he befriended and helped by doing lots of personal growth and as a result of the effects Jon's change of attitude had on them. Also, in the end, he is forced to definitely make the final choice of whether he was a man of the NW (as an aside, I think Qhorin's mission is about proving good to this decision). He never escapes it; it was just delayed, just like with the Ygritte execution. One might identify this as a plot gift, but I find it no difference than Arya getting Jaqen indebted to the and granting her three death wishes in return for her help she provided without expecting anything in return or Dany getting the Dragon eggs for no other reason than being a Targ to put an example.

As for Qhorin taking the choice from Jon I actually don't entirely disagree with you, but at the same time I feel this is intentional and rather crafty made by GRRM in service of the narrative. I will explain more when I have more time.

@everyone that posted so far, nice insights guys!

ETA- Is nice seeing so many lurkers come out from their hiding :)

[Ragnorak]

From a lurker relying on this (and other) threads to procrastinate at work:

If I'm quiet, it's because I am in awe of all of you. Ragnorak, I am a contrarian, and I usually disagree with pretty much everything anyone says about anything -- or at least my instinct is to do so -- and yet I find myself agreeing with almost every word you write. Really quite scary.

To all, please keep up the good work and I promise I'll say more if I think I have anything to contribute.

Well, what a bright and astute person you must be ;) . I'm sure there's some mundane psychological explanation... German mother, Jesuit influence, similar generational experiences, Aries, clinically insane too...

I remember liking these chapters very much my first read. As readers we get to see this land beyond the end of the world that had been so hyped revealed through Jon's eyes as he experiences it. The natural scenery was appealing to me and even reminded me a bit of my own youthful exploring in the Adirondacks. We got a glimpse of this land in the GoT prologue but mostly we know people have been vanishing beyond the Wall along with ominous hints like Tyrion's reaction to the howling wolves while he says goodbye to Jon. Even a 700 foot wall of ice implies a good reason to have built a 700 foot tall wall of ice. The Wildlings had been portrayed as savages much like the Dothraki with Dany though they never quite achieve the cultural humanizing the Free Folk do.

Qhorin's reaction to the Wildlings in general along with the backstory of his friendship with Mance really help to demystify the Old Nan version of these people before we really get to them. One aspect of Jon's arc in Clash is a suspenseful build up to meeting these Wildlings. When the next book rolled around I wasn't disappointed. I loved the cast of characters Jon meets among the Wildlings. I felt a similar enjoyment and interest with Arya in Braavos. From Cat of the Canal's adopted family, to the whores, to the mummers, to the sailors and random people she meets I felt a genuine interest and a curiosity to know more of the people and that place. I suspect part of the reason I feel there's a connection between Braavos and the North is the similarity of my experience reading about them.

Meereen is the place I had quite the opposite reaction where I was unable to feel any emotional connection with almost any of the local people (a dark place inside of me will forever cherish when those people are caught between dragonfire and the benevolence of Victarion.) One key difference is that Martin built up a curiosity over these Wildlings from the very opening and kept it up for two straight books. Meeting them is a long expected event. With Dany the suspenseful buildup was her return to Westeros and lingering in Meereen was an ambush to the readers and an offense to the buildup of plot expectations. That and they eat puppies.. own slaves... crucify children...

Of course none of this is by accident and the author has a purpose or intention behind it. Jon will meet larger than life characters like Tormund Giantsbane, Tall-talker, Horn-blower, Breaker of Ice, Husband to Bears, the Mead-king of Ruddy Hall, Speaker to Gods and Father of Hosts and Dany will meet some guy with too many damn Z's in his name who eats puppy fetuses and she marries the rich asshole from every High School movie ever made (an asshole that eats puppies too, owns slaves, and with a careful reading of the text might even molest children as well.) That isn't meant as a criticism of Dany or her choice just that Hizdar is a first class bag of excrement. Jon takes the reader into the heart of the people we heard about before we even met the Starks, and Dany halts the Fire and Blood train that we just knew was going to have a high speed collision at the KL station platform right in the aftermath of a dead Joffrey and Tywin. Given Dany's tree planting/conquering conflict it seems Martin is intentionally masking the three dimensional characters to play upon our desire to see dragons indiscriminately roast "bad guys." Dany's last Storm chapter comes before Lysa's confession and Storm is before Cersei gets a POV so our "villain" is still ruling in KL-- plus we're talking about puppies here. Puppies. Puppy eaters and dragonfire are totally a caveat for that fifth commandment thing. God appeared to Moses as a burning bush because he was roasting a puppy eater so its like totally in the Bible that you can kill puppy eaters with fire... but I digress.

Jon over the course of Clash of Kings aligns with our overall dramatic plot expectations far more so than most of the other POV characters. Sansa is set up as the Damsel in Distress forever waiting to be rescued, Arya is a constant toying with our hopes that she'll be reunited with family mixed with dire peril, with Bran we experience the very unexpected fall of Winterfell. While Jon joining the Wildlings was certainly unexpected, that he would meet the Wildlings was in the dramatic cards. In Clash Jon is on a course of being mentored and experiencing the world where the conflict he's concerned with will take place. He is set up nicely for the way his story unfolds in Storm of Swords and again in Storm for Dance. Dany has a similar build up in Clash that leads to her Slavers Bay rampage in Storm but her stopping in Meereen is very much out of step with the suspenseful plot expectations built up for the reader over the course of Storm heading into Dance with Dragons. To appreciate Dany's arc in Meereen most readers have to separate themselves from their expectations of her story built up over Storm whereas Jon's has no such expectation disconnect.

This isn't to say that I find Jon to be predictable just that his overall story isn't one that plays with the readers one sentence summary expectations. In the cosmic story picture we expect him to discover that the Ice Zombies are the real problem/rediscover the real purpose of the NW and he does. With the others we're set up to expect Sansa to get rescued (not) Arya to get home or meet family (not) Robb to rescue his sisters or avenge Ned (not) Cat to see her children again or help at least one to be safe (not) Dany to invade Westeros (still waiting...)

Circling back to my original thought, one of the reasons I enjoy Jon so much is because of the surrounding characters. Qhorin was a great character, Mormont, Dolorous Edd, Satin, Noye, Sam. Small Paul, Aemon, Ygritte, Tormond, Alys Karstark, Mance, Gilly, Cotter Pyke (one of my favorite minor characters of all) even Thorne, Marsh and Craster were great characters if not exactly as lovable as Edd. Martin's choices in presenting Jon the way he does lends itself to presenting a cast of such rich more three dimensional characters throughout his story as well as social dynamics among those characters. I bring up Dany's time in Meereen specifically because it is in many ways the polar opposite in terms of the surrounding cast's presentation. (She isn't the only one by far. Tyrion's Mountain Clans come off as comic caricatures because he does things like turn down the offer to share the ox and misses out on Shagga's hopes, dreams, and fears told over mead.) There is a very subtle and complex web of information, themes and symbolism throughout those Meereen chapters and the writing is quite brilliant-- but it doesn't lend itself to the wide array of other characters that we see in Jon or in Arya.

[Winterfellian]

Why is Jon spared from killing Qhorin in the first place?

Like Maia I think that Jon is spared by GRRM from having to kill Qhorin when the last one took the choice from him with his actions. But, I don’t necessarily view this as a weakness in Jon’s arch; to the contrary, as a way of preserving the complexity in Jon’s character.

To start, I think that if Jon had summoned the powers and skills derived from being a “hero” to simply slay Qhorin as per request we will be here rightly criticizing him for perfectly conforming to the parameters expected from a traditional hero.

A prior chapter had Jon killing his first man, a foe, and then proceeding to let another one go based on his own perception of what was right- the lack of evil/guiltiness in Ygritte’s eyes. However, killing a foe is something he had been training for his whole life and his decision to let Ygritte go is very much in accordance to his Father’s lessons. In terms of characterization and based on what we had seen and read so far, what had prepared Jon to simply slay Qhorin, a mentor figure, brother and comrade at arms at command? I think nothing. He had neither the mental preparation nor the sword skills to do so. Had Jon done it simply because the mission required him to some of the nuance of Jon’s character would have been reduced to a simplistic representation of the typical fantasy hero.

In other words, he would have done the deed for no other reason that because being the hero and Qhorin’s death being necessary for the hero’s cause it would have been expected of him. But by choosing to take the choice from Jon GRRM is not so much giving him a free pass (as per the life is harder than death motif present in these chapter and others) as he is exposing an all too human fail of his hero at this critical moment- the inability to carry out an order in service of the cause he’s fighting for even knowing what is at stake.

So for me, GRRM isn’t sparing Jon just for the sake of it, but to point out out that Jon couldn’t have done it himself, hence why the choice is taken from him. Jon’s a flawed individual; one that, despite his heroic characteristics, is all too prone for failure; he’s not perfect. The root of his actions and decisions isn’t entirely and/or exclusively rooted in service of a cause or in what he believes is right, as one would expect from a simple version of a fantasy hero. But of course, Jon being still necessary to carry out the narrative is not like GRRM Could simply had him killed, so he took another route to make him paid the price:

I (Jon) do not want to play the oathbreaker, even for good reason.

ETA- Personally I love how GRRM challenged Jons' and ours preconceived notions of certain concepts by the end of this book. In AGOT we see the choice to remain neutral is a hard one and one that is associated with doing the right thing in accordance to the NW. The Craster situation shows us the darker side of neutrality. In AGOT desertion is certainly the wrong course of action, here in ACOK it becomes a necessary one in service of the NW. In terms of Jon's development I think is important to observe that he is exposed to both sides of things.

[Ragnorak]

I read Qhorin's attacking Jon as a wise and reasonable action on Qhorin's part and the last act of his executing his fallback plan. He gave the don't balk whatever is asked of you speech but he has to know that this is still going to come as a shock to Jon and it would only be natural for him to hesitate at best or refuse at worst. He dropped the information that Mance would take him during the I spared Ygritte talk. Later makes Jon recite the vow, tells him he must yield, gives him the what honor is worth speech, the all fires will go out line, etc. He's been preparing Jon for this as best he can knowing that "Hey you're going to have to kill me" is a non-starter for the guy who spared Ygritte.

Rattleshirt’s bone armor clattered loudly as he laughed. “Then kill the Halfhand, bastard.”

“As if he could,” said Qhorin. “Turn, Snow, and die.”

And then Qhorin’s sword was coming at him and somehow Longclaw leapt upward to block.

The "turn" comes off to the Wildlings as a "face me" line but it is the emphasized word and serves to reiterate his order to Jon. The "and die" essentially communicates that this is a fight to the death and one in which the Halfhand expects Jon to kill him as per his orders. Qhorin essentially ambushed Jon with this situation despite prepping him to understand it once it was revealed. He attacks Jon to cover for what would likely be a shocked or hesitant reaction but his verbal threat also prevents his actual attack from being an ambush. I doubt any reaction Jon would have could possibly help him here and most would likely hurt him. I read this as the Halfhand executing the last act of his plan and doing so based on what he has come to know of Jon.

I also connect this as a mentoring moment to the time in the training yard in Dance where he wants three opponents.

“Three on one?” Jace was incredulous. “That wouldn’t be fair.” He was one of Conwy’s latest bunch, a cobbler’s son from Fair Isle. Maybe that explained it.

“True. Come here.”

When he did, Jon’s blade slammed him alongside his head, knocking him off his feet. In the blink of an eye the boy had a boot on his chest and a swordpoint at his throat. “War is never fair,” Jon told him. “It’s two on one now, and you’re dead.”

Part of it is the vague similarity of the unexpected attack but mostly I think this is a moment of shattered innocence and idealism and a forced dawning of what it takes to survive. The training yard lesson is very much the same at its core.

[Lummel]

...Qhorin's "ruby necklace" = "Rhaegar's rubies"? A chain of sacrifices that is needed to forge Jon into what/who he must become?...

Dunno, specifically because reading that Qhorin gets a ruby necklace reminds me of Cersei getting a pearl necklace (also in ACOK), I've half a mind to think of this as a deliberate parallel :laugh: the vistictudes of service for your cause!

The death stroke strikes me as oddly anti-climatic, gentle isn't the word I'm looking for but it certainly isn't savage. I would have thought that a killing blow to the neck would have been pretty bloody, but that glancing blow and Qhorin's last word seem as peaceful a battle death as anyone gets. Maybe there is a point there about the awful casualness of dieing?

And, of course, the fact that despite all the convincing from Qhorin, Jon really didn't have a choice re: killing him, only what to do next. Qhorin took away that choice by atttacking so aggressively that Jon reflexively had to defend himself with all his might...

Yes that business of choice. Your words got me thinking. I've been keen to post for a couple of years that Arya does not get much choice in her narrative either, obviously Sansa doesn't, and then neither does Bran. This morning with a sip of coffee I see that Robb doesn't have much in the way of choice either - he has to call the banners and the rest is history (well, ok, a novel, and ok, he doesn't have to, but not doing so would be hard and really, really hard for a teenaged boy).

Choice is a matter for the singers mayhaps. One aspect of ASOIAF is that when we follow a POV we see that people's choices are very limited, their psychologies and social position cut down on their options. In a way Jon has no right to chose once he swore that oath, actually that is exactly what Qhorin told him in the cave, there is no but. Blede has an interesting thread setting out the parallels between Jon and Jaime, and this is one of them, once you've sworn that oath you get no choice and you have to live with the consequences. The question is how you learn to manoeuvre within the oath bound world, or in other words, no wonder Jon is depressed by ADWD...

Now re: "bloody hands" metaphor, Jon escapes with "clean hands" here, relatively. All the planning and choices have been already made, the only option he had was to waste that sacrifice...

Yes, there is a question of how Jon and the watch deal with his culpability for this and other acts, I think this is something to watch out for.

...Ragnorak, I am a contrarian, and I usually disagree with pretty much everything anyone says about anything -- or at least my instinct is to do so -- and yet I find myself agreeing with almost every word you write. Really quite scary.

To all, please keep up the good work and I promise I'll say more if I think I have anything to contribute.

There are worse things in the world than finding yourself in argeement with Ragnorak :laugh:

But everybody has something to contribute, whether it be what you like or dislike about a chapter, what stands out, or what you notice because it isn't there. Not that I want to bully everyone into participating or anything ;)

...Yes, Jon is conveniently saved from a certain detection and further execution. But what lead up to this? What are the circumstances that set in motion the boys' decision to go after him and bring him back? In my opinion, the answer is Jon’s own actions. The boys who risked themselves to go after him were the same brutes and bullies without any trace of honor (as per Jon’s description of them) who tried to beat him up at the start of AGOT. Where lays the difference then? In Jon’s own change of attitude regarding them; a change that came from within him, after acknowledging the wise counsel of Donal Noye’s speech of course...

hmm, that gives the story a nice dynamic feeling of change, in contrast to what I was saying early, or adding to it if you are feeling generous, if you do even politically speaking small things differently the end effect can be very big indeed.

ETA- Is nice seeing so many lurkers come out from their hiding :)

:cheers:

...Jon over the course of Clash of Kings aligns with our overall dramatic plot expectations far more so than most of the other POV characters. Sansa is set up as the Damsel in Distress forever waiting to be rescued, Arya is a constant toying with our hopes that she'll be reunited with family mixed with dire peril, with Bran we experience the very unexpected fall of Winterfell. While Jon joining the Wildlings was certainly unexpected, that he would meet the Wildlings was in the dramatic cards. In Clash Jon is on a course of being mentored and experiencing the world where the conflict he's concerned with will take place. He is set up nicely for the way his story unfolds in Storm of Swords and again in Storm for Dance...

yes there is a way in which Jon's story seems the simplest to explain and flows the smoothest with the least abrupt changes in direction now that you put it that way

... what had prepared Jon to simply slay Qhorin, a mentor figure, brother and comrade at arms at command?...

I have another thought to add to this - kill the boy and let the man be born. The mentor has to die so the mentored can move beyond them. Also similar to what you are saying, there is a death of innocence about this, service in the night's watch isn't straight forward, swinging from teh tree tops and suprising wildlings, it is nasty and requires the oathbound to do horrible things, even to be horrible - just thinking of the description of torture "Ebben can make any man give up his secrets" in Jon VII.

I read Qhorin's attacking Jon as a wise and reasonable action on Qhorin's part and the last act of his executing his fallback plan...He's been preparing Jon for this as best he can knowing that "Hey you're going to have to kill me" is a non-starter for the guy who spared Ygritte...

Part of it is the vague similarity of the unexpected attack but mostly I think this is a moment of shattered innocence and idealism and a forced dawning of what it takes to survive. The training yard lesson is very much the same at its core.

So Qhorin knows his man then! That explaination makes a lot of sense...

[Maia]

So yes, Jon is “saved” from making the wrong choice, but by the persons he befriended and helped as the by doing lots of personal growth and as result of the effects Jon's change of attitude had on them.

True, and I had zero problem with it at the time I read it and even now, it is mostly the cumulative effect of such occurences in Jon's arc that irks me.

And BTW, if Jon didn't manage to befriend the boys, I don't think that he would have stayed. His chapter prior to taking the vows does stress that his considering NW "home" and attachement to his friends were essential factors in going through with it, instead of leaving to see the world - which would have led to a very different story.

In fact, when I was reading AGOT for the first time, I was surprised and disappointed that Tyrion didn't propose to Jon to go travel Westeros together, before making any irrevocable commitements ;).

As for Qhorin taking the choice from Jon I actually don't entirely disagree with you, but at the same time I feel this is intentional and rather crafty made by GRRM in service of the narrative. I

I actually agree with you - and I like what GRRM did here. It would have been highly implausible otherwise.

Circling back to my original thought, one of the reasons I enjoy Jon so much is because of the surrounding characters. Qhorin was a great character, Mormont, Dolorous Edd, Satin, Noye, Sam. Small Paul, Aemon, Ygritte, Tormond, Alys Karstark, Mance, Gilly, Cotter Pyke (one of my favorite minor characters of all) even Thorne, Marsh and Craster were great characters if not exactly as lovable as Edd.

Well, despite not Liking Jon as a character all that much, I also enjoy his chapters and exactly for the same reasons - interesting things happen, interesting and vivid people appear, etc. It is also clear that these characters and their cultures are much deeper because they are meant to stay with us for a long time.

I bring up Dany's time in Meereen specifically because it is in many ways the polar opposite in terms of the surrounding cast's presentation.

Yes, I think that previously the shallowness of Dany's environment has been successfully masked by the dreamy/exotic/mythological feel of her narrative, but with focus on politics and ruling in Meeren it came apart atthe seams. For politics to be interesting, you need a 3-dimensional entourage and adversaries and Martin clearly wasn't interested in creating them for the throw-away society of the Slaver's Bay.

The Free Cities and characters hailing from them, notably, have much more substance, which suggests that they will have a greater ongoing role in the future proceedings, IMHO.

Yes that business of choice. Your words got me thinking. I've been keen to post for a couple of years that Arya does not get much choice in her narrative either, obviously Sansa doesn't, and then neither does Bran. This morning with a sip of coffee I see that Robb doesn't have much in the way of choice either - he has to call the banners and the rest is history (well, ok, a novel, and ok, he doesn't have to, but not doing so would be hard and really, really hard for a teenaged boy).

Eh, I disagree about Robb and Arya. Both of them had plenty of choices.

Heck, both Ned and Cat were shocked and flabbergasted that Robb chose to march to war, so it wasn't nearly as imperative as Robb apologists claim!

As to Arya, she was constantly making choices that shaped her narrative in fundamental ways - the fact that she didn't understand the consequences of these choices and/or couldn't achieve her goals is beside the point.

[butterbumps!]

Lummel, I greatly appreciated your write-up and all the insightful contributions by the re-read regulars. I also really like this chapter, despite not being a particular fan of Jon's - he is too stereotypical a hero for me and... there is that other thing that bothers me about him and is bound to inflame the spirits, as it were. The chapter is wonderfully moody and foreboding and gives valuable insight into the world beyond the Wall, Ideology of dedicated NW members and personality of Qhorin.

True, and I had zero problem with it at the time I read it and even now, it is mostly the cumulative effect of such occurences in Jon's arc that irks me.

Well, despite not Liking Jon as a character all that much, I also enjoy his chapters and exactly for the same reasons - interesting things happen, interesting and vivid people appear, etc. It is also clear that these characters and their cultures are much deeper because they are meant to stay with us for a long time.

I'm not "inflamed" by any means. However, I'm not sure that these statements are very fair. One of the purposes of ReRead projects is to approach the character arc with fresh eyes and scrutinize the text closely in order to challenge preconceived notions about the character at large. Though the purpose is never to "make" people "like" that character, "appreciation" of the character's arc is a goal, and in order to do that, not putting the character in a box, especially at such an early stage, is critical. Whether that preconceived notion is "she's not a real Stark!" "All her decisions are emotional!" or "he's such a stereotype!" it's the goal of these projects to look deeply and not take these sorts of declarations as givens.

In particular, I strongly dislike the criticisms of Jon's character as "stereotypical" and cliched because we don't actually know how he's going to develop in these last two books. That is, unless we know that his arc is going to resolve according to the stereotypical hero's trope, such criticisms are complete speculation. This is not the time to get into predictions about his future, but suffice it to say that while there are a lot of fans who think he's going to be the savior of the world, there's also fans who believe he'll "live" long enough to become a villain (or at least an "anti-hero" of sorts, which is kind of my view). At any rate, the meta-criticisms about stereotypical heroes are neither conducive to a reread, nor are they substantive in general because they inherently presuppose knowledge of Jon's character resolution.

Since I know you do enjoy rereads, but don't care for Jon in particular very much, I thought I might make a slightly unorthodox confession in the event it opens a different way of reading. Jon and Jaime (along with Sansa) are my absolute favorite characters in this series. But, and a big "but," I don't think that I would love either of those characters without the other. They're a package deal for me; having Jaime allows me to appreciate Jon and vice versa, as they are my big "foil" characters (I remember I didn't really warm to Jon until sometime in aSoS, which is when Jaime's chapters start, and I kind of link the two).

I bring this up, because this is a different take on the "meta" critique you've been making. Though I don't believe that too much "meta" belongs in a reread, I do want to point out that a meta-critique can be productive when it goes beyond a simple summation of a single character, which, given the juxtaposing POV structure of the series, seems like the intended way to make such a critique. The "meta" question is not whether Jon fits into a cliche or stereotype, but how his character puts others in relief and vice versa-- this notion is why we encourage adjacent character comparisons in the OP of these threads.

If there's a struggle to appreciate Jon on his own, it might be helpful to put his character in perspective to the rest of the characters. For me, at least, Jon becomes a breath of fresh air in light of the extreme moral ambiguity and/or heartbreak the other characters deal with. We can laugh at Cersei, be oddly forgiving about defenestrating kids, get through the Red Wedding because of someone like Jon, whose arc puts these incidents into perspective (there's a real enemy out there), as well as gives us hope that there's still someone out there trying to do the "right" thing (I think to an extent Brienne and Davos function similarly, but Jon's arc centers around the Others, which adds a bit more imperative).

Anyway, I don't want to continue down this tangent. I don't believe that singular "meta" critiques belong in rereads, both because they perpetuate preconceived notions which these projects seek to challenge, as well as because such a critique is myopic in light of the way the books are structured such that the characters play off each other. Every character can be summarized into stereotypes; it does the series more justice to refrain from making those sorts of summations, and/or put those sort of "meta" critiques into relief with other characters.

[Treemaster]

Well, what a bright and astute person you must be ;) . I'm sure there's some mundane psychological explanation... German mother, Jesuit influence, similar generational experiences, Aries, clinically insane too...

Hmm, struck out on all of those, except for maybe the "clinically insane" part. :)

I read Qhorin's attacking Jon as a wise and reasonable action on Qhorin's part and the last act of his executing his fallback plan.

:agree: It happened again! Qhorin had decided what needed to be done, and forced a reluctant Jon to do it. Otherwise Jon would not have been able to follow-through on his role in the plan (to kill Qhorin) and Qhorin's plan would have fallen through.

Meereen is the place I had quite the opposite reaction where I was unable to feel any emotional connection with almost any of the local people (a dark place inside of me will forever cherish when those people are caught between dragonfire and the benevolence of Victarion.) One key difference is that Martin built up a curiosity over these Wildlings from the very opening and kept it up for two straight books. Meeting them is a long expected event. With Dany the suspenseful buildup was her return to Westeros and lingering in Meereen was an ambush to the readers and an offense to the buildup of plot expectations. That and they eat puppies.. own slaves... crucify children...

Ah ha, something I had a different reaction too. Hizdahr may well turn out to be a scumbag, but it's too soon to be able to make that call, at least for me. I think Martin presents him fairly sympathetically, and his arguments (about reopening the slave pits and for marrying Dany) are logical and make sense. Now, if it turns out that Hizdahr is the harpy or an agent of the harpy, and that Hizdahr is the one who tried to kill Dany via the locusts, then I will gladly support hauling him before the dragons for a nice mid-day snack, but I suspect it will turn out that Hizdahr is not in fact the villain.

That being said, I agree with your overall assessment of Meeren.

But everybody has something to contribute, whether it be what you like or dislike about a chapter, what stands out, or what you notice because it isn't there. Not that I want to bully everyone into participating or anything ;)

Very well, but be careful what you ask for! :D

The conclusion to Jon's chapters in ACOK is terrific, and features some of the best writing in the entire series. I like Jon's arc all the way up to the point when he returns to the NIght's Watch. When he is elected Commander, that is when his role starts to feel a bit stereotypical to me...Of course Martin upends our expectations again with the events at the end of ADWD. I'm looking forward to finding out what happens to him in the next book (along with everyone else, I'm sure...).

[Winterfellian]

There are worse things in the world than finding yourself in argeement with Ragnorak :laugh:

LOL :D

I have another thought to add to this - kill the boy and let the man be born. The mentor has to die so the mentored can move beyond them. Also similar to what you are saying, there is a death of innocence about this, service in the night's watch isn't straight forward, swinging from teh tree tops and suprising wildlings, it is nasty and requires the oathbound to do horrible things, even to be horrible - just thinking of the description of torture "Ebben can make any man give up his secrets" in Jon VII.

Oh I agree that killing the boy is something Jon’s arch is moving towards. The break with the mentor is a big step in any character’s journey. I think that Jon’s inability to kill Qhorin without the way out that latter provided is a reflection of how unready Jon is to take the path towards killing the boy. Is the shatter of innocence that results from the events following Qhorin’s death and the last mission he commends to Jon in service of the NW that gives him the tools later on to make this jump.

The Jon who takes the first steps towards killing the boy in ADWD after sending away Maester Aemon (alas, the last of the mentors!) to die, though unbeknown to him, is a young man hardened by battle, loss and grief. He has lead men and not only followed, he has love and lost in service of the NW, he has given up a long coveted dream to pursue his duty, live to mourn the destruction of his family and childhood home, etc

About Jon’s lack of choice in the apparent "desertion", I think this was also intentional not only on the basis of Jon’s unreadiness but also because desertion is something I feel Jon’s arch is moving towards. Through the last 2 books we have seen how the words of the oath have come to mean something to Jon and how seriously he takes them.

What follows in the next books is Jon tapping through experience into the nature of the oath which in turn leads him to ask what the important part of the oath is. Is it the words or the intentions behind it? That’s one of the reasons why I find the reciting the words of the oath so meaningful. This desertion, where there is a seemingly lack of agency in Jon’s part is done in service of the oath, by which he is bounded and coerced through the words of the same oath. The second desertion that I feel is coming will be done consciously in Jon's part in service of the spirit of the oath, the protection of the Realms of men, in disregard of the wording of any oath he's bound to.

Snip

In abscence of the like function I can only say I agree completely.

[Blede]

Bones and chains

In Riverrun Jaime is bound at the wall by loads and loads of chains, and when Catelyn goes to talk to him, he thinks she has come to give him more.

He was fettered at wrist and ankle, each cuff chained to the others, so he could neither stand nor lie comfortably. The ankle chains were bolted to the wall. "Are my bracelets heavy enough for you, or did you come to add a few more ? I'll rattle them prettily if you like."

Jon is about to be taken prisoner, and meets Rattleshirt, who is armored in bones and says he wants more.

"Rattleshirt" Qhorin called down, icy-polite.

[...] He did rattle, Jon could hear it; the bones were strung together loosely, so they clacked and clattered when he moved. "It's your bones I'll be rattling soon, Halfhand. I'll boil the flesh off you and make a byrnie from your ribs. I'll carve your teeth to cast me runes, and eat me oaten porridge from your skull."

I think Jaime's chains and Rattleshirt represent mistrust, and being a prisoner. When Jon is taken prisoner, he is taken by Rattleshirt, and when Mance is "convinced" Jon is true, he leaves Rattleshirt's band (meaning the free folk trust him now and he is not a prisoner anymore, but one of them).

Also a bit of related foreshadowing:

[...] "If you fail to punish me, men will believe that we connived together to free Jaime Lannister. It was mine own act and I alone must answer for it. Put me in the Kingslayer's empty irons, and I will wear them proudly, if that is how it must be."

Catelyn is the one who freed Jaime and sent him on the mission to return her daughters back, as Mance frees Jon and sends him to take Castle Black. Cat wearing Jaime's chains foreshadows Mance wearing Rattleshirt's bone shirt and taking his identity.

By the way, now that Jon's journey with the wildling is about to begin, I think we should really start a Jaime reread to compare them.

[Elba the Intoner]

By the way, now that Jon's journey with the wildling is about to begin, I think we should really start a Jaime reread to compare them.

OMG I would so very much love to do a Jaime reread! I have been itching to do one for a while and I'd gladly help with it too.

[Julian Rayne]

Yes, Jon is conveniently saved from a certain detection and further execution. But what lead up to this? What are the circumstances that set in motion the boys' decision to go after him and bring him back? In my opinion, the answer is Jon’s own actions. The boys who risked themselves to go after him were the same brutes and bullies without any trace of honor (as per Jon’s description of them) who tried to beat him up at the start of AGOT. Where lays the difference then? In Jon’s own change of attitude regarding them; a change that came from within him, after acknowledging the wise counsel of Donal Noye’s speech of course. If he had been the same narrow minded and entitled boy he was when he first got to the NW I don’t think that any of these boys would have trouble themselves with trying to get him back to CB. They probably would have been standing first line during Jon’s execution next to Sir Allyser trying to decide who would get his boots. Not to mention that if Jon hadn’t taken the time and effort to help and befriend Sam for no other reason that because it was the right thing to do, there wouldn’t have been anyone to sound the alarm after his escape.

I agree with all of this. It's a nice parallel to The Ned and his "stupid honor" which persuades the mountain clans to help his little girl even after he's dead.

[Lummel]

ACOK Roundup

OK, I'll divide Jon's story into three parts: chapters Jon I-III, Jon IV-V and Jon VI-VIII. Journey, at the Fist, Journey.

For the first stage of the journey there is a map – although one there is largely empty. Once they reach the Fist Jon learns that the idea is not to find the path to Benjen but to be a track for Benjen to follow. Finally Jon is taken on another journey, one that relies on human memory.

The physical journey is paralleled by the inner journey. In AGOT there was a simple directional choice – which way should one travel the King's Road? North or South? But also the path towards better behaviour, how to win friends and influence people. This focus is sharpened in ACOK to road to becoming a leader. Key here is Sam's challenge in bringing Gilly to him, Jon's memory of The Ned – some followers dishonour their lords by their service and Qhorin as a new mentor. Know your men, look to keep your best options open. The optimal strategy isn't the best strategy, simply the best possible in those circumstances. Be careful in what and how you share with your men. These are aspects of leadership that we will see again in ADWD.

The Physical journey also plunges us into adventure and the mythical world beyond the wall. Here are the snarks and grumpkins only the Wildling drinks thin mead out of a cracked cup rather than blood from a skull. On the other hand the sense of menace and deepening mystery, the moments of beauty were not something that Jon anticipated.

In common with Bran (arguably Sansa depending on how you read her final scene with Sandor) there is a step into warging (Arya's waits until the beginning of ASOS).

There is the continued focus on men – contrast the descriptions of Craster and Qhorin with those of Gilly and Ygritte.

I think there is change in Jon's confidence – he's prepared to question and implicitly criticise Mormont over Craster and to point out the lack of a water supply as a weakness of the Fist. In other ways though he remains the trainee, learning from Qhorin.

There's a heavy sense of the inevitable – having committed to a certain course of action the conclusion becomes inescapable. Death is the companion of the watchman. We feel the Watch is watched and that this watching presence is not a friendly one.

We are introduced to deeper mysteries: sacrifices to the old gods, sacrifices to the cold gods, a cache of obsidian, all of which is connected to the mass migration of the Wildlings led by renegade ex-watchman The Mance which will shape the narrative in ASOS...

That's enough blather from me, your comments, views, experiences, delights and displeasures about Jon's story in ACOK, parallels with other characters within and outside ASOIAF etc etc are respectfully invited before Ragnorak leads us in the ASOS prologue!

[Mladen]

Ok, since my book recap failed to draw any attention, I will deal with this one...

I think that we see one really amazing growth of Jon's emotional intelligence. We thematically continued from where we stopped at the end of AGOT, marking the pursuit for "doing the right things" quite important as part of Jon's arc. The ability to finally see one of his enemies in the eyes of Ygritte and to realize that things in his world aren't as simple as he thought them to be. Jon is learnt one difficult lesson after another. From Craster to Ygritte, he is on journey of realizing his true enemy, and that are not wildings. The impact of his findings in this book will resonate throughout next installments.

As for parallels with his siblings, for me the most obvious one is with Sansa. The nuances they became aware in the world that surrounds them, and how they change them are simply astonishing. The broken image of knights parallels with humanized image of wildings. The sense of quiet and solitude is simply amazing when we read their chapters in which Sansa feels so alone in the world, and Jon's surrounding is such powerfully quiet image. The return to the Old Gods, and old ways is something that is notable in their storylines. Sansa's prayers in the godswood, with Jon's approach to the Fist has symbolic value that some things shall never die. And that sense of belonging is constantly present. They are Starks of Winterfell, and no matter where they are, who is surrounding them, and what are the circumstances, or even what their names are, they will always remain that.

Finally, about the roads Jon has taken. In AGOT, we had the dilemma between old and new family. In ACOK, we see that dilemma is over. Brother Robb simply isn't the same person as King Robb, and Jon becomes aware that Robb truly doesn't need him. But NW does need him. Here, I see two paths of Jon's story:

1. Path opposite to all other paths in the books. Path that leads him away from "the game" straight into "a song"

2. A crossroad of taking the paths that aren't easily walked. Paths that teach us about all the life's intricacies. This is the path where Jon lears that nothing, and absolutely nothing is as he imagined it to be.

At the end, I have to compliment the amazing trio behind this rereading project. With such great analysis, insights, metaphors and deductive skills, we can only applaud to your amazing work and dedication. ACOK certainly isn't my favorite book of the series, but while rereading Jon's chapters for this thread, I found so many beautiful things I have missed the first time. And the three hosts of this thread takes credit for that, as also some of the regular contributors of this project (looking at you, Winterfellian :)). So, congrats, and can't wait to continue with ASOS.

[Ragnorak]

ACOK Roundup

OK, I'll divide Jon's story into three parts: chapters Jon I-III, Jon IV-V and Jon VI-VIII. Journey, at the Fist, Journey.

For the first stage of the journey there is a map – although one there is largely empty. Once they reach the Fist Jon learns that the idea is not to find the path to Benjen but to be a track for Benjen to follow. Finally Jon is taken on another journey, one that relies on human memory.

Very nice, Lummel. I'd call the running metaphor of the road brilliant but I think the word is more apprpriately "perceptive" as you seem to have picked up on a theme that is there and deliberately so on the author's part. Even back in GoT we have the different roads lead to the same castle line hinting at this road metaphor. On reflection this seems an odd symbol to see so strongly in Jon because I think he is our least travelled POV character except for maybe Cersei and she was a relatively late addition.

In GoT Jon travels on the road to Castle Black and discovers things that he must digest and incorporate into his life and worldview at Castle Black. Primary among them is his view of the men that make up the Watch. Clash is a similar. The ranging is really a jourmey to Castle Black (in theory and reality) despite its many detours and he will discover things about the Wildlings that he must digest and incorporate into his worldview upon his return. Both journeys involve discovering something in contradiction to Jon's preconceived notions that he digests upon reaching Castle Black in decisions that result in a unity of sorts that includes the good and the bad. Jon sees the rapists that will be his brothers and gets his speech from Tyrion that shatters his illusions of the Watch. At Castle Black he digests this through his internal debate over family and comes to accept all the men of the NW as brothers. The ranging will result in similar discoveries about the Wildlings and then Jon's internally debating his oath that will lead to an acceptance of all the Wildlings including men like the Weeper.

We also see a theme of both good and bad characters often paired. In GoT we have Thorne and Noye as his first two mentor figures. In Clash we see him meet Craster and Gilly and then Ygritte and Rattleshirt. His journey starts off as mundane and dreary but then he has his magical ice morning and begins to notice more of the beauty in the surroundings. This mirrors his take on the people of the Watch and the Wildlings. He found Sam and Grenn and Pip amongst the rapists and will find Leathers and Tormund amongst the Wildlings. All in all Clash is a long journey that prepares Jon to accept the Wildlings as it builds on the lessons he used to accept the Watch. Even the absence of Wildlings shows him how they lived in the villages and that they are afraid. The disorder Ghost sees in the valley is helps bring the notion of Free Folk into focus. Despite only really having met Craster, Gilly (psuedo wildlings at that) Ygritte and Rattleshirt, Jon has a very good picture of these people and their plight leading into Storm of Swords where he'll really come to know them.

Clash begins with Jon leaving Castle Black and ends with Qhorin tasking him with returning to Castle Black. The context and importance of that return trip has been slowly revealed and defined throughout the book. It stands out a bit as the one book where Jon is actually journeying while travelling his road. Outside of Cersei who is introduced as a POV a bit late, Jon is probably the least geographically mobile character. Even her time under the High Septon's hospitality is a more striking contrast to her Red Keep home than Jon's Clash journey is to his home at Castle Black. The overall effect seems to emphasize the internal road Jon travels especially compared to the travels of someone like Arya. I think the closest parallel in this sense is Sansa who also has a very internal road to travel. The road concept stands out more so given his choice to not travel the Kings Road early on and his relatively static location in Castle Black throughout most of his story.

[Lummel]

...The overall effect seems to emphasize the internal road Jon travels especially compared to the travels of someone like Arya. I think the closest parallel in this sense is Sansa who also has a very internal road to travel. The road concept stands out more so given his choice to not travel the Kings Road early on and his relatively static location in Castle Black throughout most of his story.

Definitely, particularly when compared with Tyrion who zips about all over the maps but doesn't really change until he is forced to sit still for more than five minutes at the end of ASOS. There the egg he has lived in is cracked open and he is forced to confront the wide and wicked world. For Jon though travel really does broaden the mind. The physical journey mirrors the internal journey, very much like a folk tale his meetings, friendships and the events on the journey are all significant and produce the inner change that Robb avoids by treading the heroes road instead. Or something.